Asylum Seekers to Rwanda - A Deterrent?

[Newchodge]

I don't know what hospital I was born in, I went to loads of different schools and I have no idea where my parents met. I also don't know my father's date of birth, not even the year.

So I guess I'm going to be deported?

Of course, if I needed to I could make up answers and stick to them. If I'm claiming to be from a war torn country, how are you planning on checking my school record?

It is for you to PROVE your claim, not for the authorities to disprove it. That scenario would result in a no credible evidence decision and a rejection. If you make up answers the local embassy or consulate will be asked to check. Even war torn countries maintain records.

 

[NickGrogan]

And if they appear to be under 25 there will be a full investigation including physical exmination to establish their likeyl age. The difference is that if they appear to be over 25 they won't even be considered. It's the same as shops selling alcohol using a 25 policy. If you appear to be under 25 you have to prove that you are over 18 before buying alcohol. It is perfectly legal to buy alcohol aged 24, but the proof of age policy kicks in if they appear to be under 25.

"Where we believe that somebody is obviously over 25, we undergo a thorough age assessment. That means that it is two social workers independently over a two-day period—that is the Merton assessment—who are specially trained in age assessment."

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/793/default Q80

Over, not Under.

The Merton assessment is an interview.

"a medical report from a paediatrician is not necessary and the authority conducting the assessment is not required to commission one"

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1045849/Assessing_age.pdf

Published for Home Office staff on 14 January 2022

 

[UkAppCoder]

I'll make this my last post here because some people seem to be getting a little personal because they don't have any valid arguments.

IanSuth:
Very un LOL

My "LOL" was at the whole farcical nonsense of it all - and you know it.

So don't try to make out that I'm laughing at the unfortunate positions that some poor people are in - I'm not - and you know it.

But since you've brought it up in order to get personal because you have no valid arguments; are you aware that many of these migrants are borrowing thousands of pounds from their travel agents, and then being made to work it off as slaves when they reach the UK?

YOU are supporting this evil practice.

Also, people are risking their lives to cross the channel in flimsy dinghies, sometimes with babies on board. Have you forgotten about the 27 souls which were lost not too long ago?

YOU are supporting this despicable evil.

Employment Law Clinic:
Given the quality of your posts above...

Now, now. You know what it means when people start to get personal.

Employment Law Clinic:
You think that despite risking their life travelling across the globe, they won't risk the short channel journey unless they get sent to Rwanda, from where they'll start their efforts again?

Eh? Only to end up in Rwanda again?!

Employment Law Clinic:
That's exactly what it proves!

Eh? These judges of yours must be divine beings or something! How can they possibly imply that someone without a shred of documentation is genuinely entitled to asylum.

Are you seriously suggesting that no assumptions are made by these judges, and that there is no benefit of doubt, or willingness to err on the side of caution?!

Can you not imagine what would happen if they refused some migrants asylum, and later it turned out that they were entitled to it after all?

Newchodge:
Why on earth would people fleeing persecution 'not want to risk ending up in Rwanda'? Could it be because Rwanda is not a safe place to be?

To the latter: I don't believe it is a bad place. All the relevant authorities have given their approval. Also, there are other countries using Rwanda's asylum processing services.

To the former: that they are "fleeing persecution" is an assumption and should not be used in the absence of proof. They do not want to risk ending up in Rwanda because Rwanda is not the UK.

Newchodge:
Approval means they have passed all the tests to prove they are entitled to asylum.

What tests? Are you referring to tests which are based on what the migrants tell the assessors, and on what the examiners can see? See my answer to Newchodge below.

Employment Law Clinic:
This sounds like such a clever ploy, it’s shocking so many people fail in their applications at all, let alone the 25% who fail despite adopting this ploy.

It matters not whether they succeed or fail in their applications. All the better for them if they succeed, but if they fail, they simply disappear into the dark economy for a while, then pop up later once they've acquired some documentation. It's easy!

Employment Law Clinic:
Surely they must learn their lesson though, that they failed to get asylum because they had a phone or passport with them, so make sure to dump that, and (given it’s apparently easy to get around things like finger-printing) they can’t fail. That again sounds like an incentive for return-business, every incentive to try again.

I don't know why you're talking about migrants having to "learn their lesson" and trying again. They need only try it once and they will be successful because their traffickers give them a free "lesson" on what they must do - it's all part of the service!

Newchodge:
And how will they sustain that lie when they are asked about the street they lived in, the hospital they were born in, the school they attended, where their parents met etc etc etc.

Rigorous "tests" indeed!

Do you think that their travel agents haven't told them how to pass these "tests"?

Do they have to score 100%?

Newchodge:
And if they appear to be under 25 there will be a full investigation including physical exmination to establish their likeyl age. The difference is that if they appear to be over 25 they won't even be considered. It's the same as shops selling alcohol using a 25 policy. If you appear to be under 25 you have to prove that you are over 18 before buying alcohol. It is perfectly legal to buy alcohol aged 24, but the proof of age policy kicks in if they appear to be under 25.

Not one of your "tests" is worth a piece of dog plop because if they don't pass your "tests", then they'll just run off into the dark economy. It'll take them about 10 minutes to acquire some documentation, and they'll even be able to wait for a decision on their applications in the comfort of their plush accommodation which the tax-payer will provide for them!

 

[Newchodge]

I'll make this my last post here because some people seem to be getting a little personal because they don't have any valid arguments.

LOL

 

[MOIC]

Some valid points by @UkAppCoder.

While this is not representative of 100% of those seeking asylum, there is a number that fall into this section (no verifiable proof). It’s this small number which are being located in Rwanda for ‘processing’.

Just to add, I don’t remember the UN trying to stop the massacre in Rwanda in 1994, actually telling the ‘peace keeping force’ not to interfere with what was taking place. The same applies to other countries, who turned a blind eye.

Yet for ‘asylum seekers’ there seems this outcry.

It should also be clear that there is a reciprocal arrangement with Rwanda for them to send genuine asylum seekers with verifiable proof to the UK. That fact is never mentioned.

Take a trip to Dover or adjacent towns and see how it’s been ruined. Also there are protests where a designated area is to be allocated to asylum seekers to live in the north.

You can’t please everyone and there has to be a balance and verifiable checks to allow bona fide asylum seekers to settle in UK.

The French are only too happy to lower the asylum seekers in their country and allow them to be shipped to UK on unseaworthy dinghies, irrespective of the dangers. That’s the real problem.

Of all the activists that were protesting, I wonder how many have taken in asylum seekers that have come via France.

My guess is 0.

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Take a trip to Dover or adjacent towns and see how it’s been ruined.

It may well be ruined, but Dover voted for Brexit, which included the UK consciously opting out the Dublin Convention, so that we now have to manage these asylum-seekers, rather than return them to France or other parts of Europe, which was a simple process. (Also, lorry parks and lots of traffic in Dover too.)

Some of us may not like it, but that’s democracy, and as UkAppCoder says

the will of the people will eventually prevail

People can hardly complain when they get what they wished for.


Karl Limpert

 

[MOIC]

Come on Karl, be even handed, even slightly.

 

[NickGrogan]

If you make up answers the local embassy or consulate will be asked to check. Even war torn countries maintain records.

So if I claim to be from Iran, then they'll contact the Iranian embassy who'll happily share the school records? Along with countries like Afghanistan? I must say that seems unlikely.

Given the state of record-keeping in the UK, I'm not holding out much hope for information from other countries.

Hunt launched to find ‘ghost children’ missing from schools in England

England’s care commissioner begins exhaustive inquiry as a record number of absences are reported by 10 local authorities

www.theguardian.com

"From these key findings, we do not have an accurate real-time figure of how many children there are in England, nor where they are"

https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/cco-where-are-englands-children-interim-findings-mar-2022.pdf

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Come on Karl, be even handed, even slightly.

What’s the problem? It’s what the majority voted for. I don’t like any of it, but where it’s legal that’s the will of the people.


Where it’s not legal, obviously even this government are held to account by the courts on the anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta, are still not a law unto themselves.

Only on Tuesday the Daily Mail labelled The Court of Common Sense the very court that stopped the last three people to be sent to Rwanda yesterday.

How can anyone complain about the will of the people when we voted for Brexit in 2016, voted for this Conservative gov’t in 2019, and even the Daily Mail recognise that the judges responsible for stopping the last few people being sent to Rwanda is the Court of Common Sense?


Karl Limpert

 

[MOIC]

Time to leave The Court of Common Sense.

One judge passing judgement without sufficient time to read the original court details.

It’s all political, sadly.

 

[IanSuth]

I'll make this my last post here because some people seem to be getting a little personal because they don't have any valid arguments.



My "LOL" was at the whole farcical nonsense of it all - and you know it.

So don't try to make out that I'm laughing at the unfortunate positions that some poor people are in - I'm not - and you know it.

But since you've brought it up in order to get personal because you have no valid arguments; are you aware that many of these migrants are borrowing thousands of pounds from their travel agents, and then being made to work it off as slaves when they reach the UK?

YOU are supporting this evil practice.

Also, people are risking their lives to cross the channel in flimsy dinghies, sometimes with babies on board. Have you forgotten about the 27 souls which were lost not too long ago?

YOU are supporting this despicable evil.



Now, now. You know what it means when people start to get personal.

I guess you didnt read the articles i posted then - hardly travel agents when 1 of those Vietnamese who was written about was abducted as a street child and trafficked to the UK via China to be used as a slave in a grow house before he escaped through jumping out of an upstairs window.

But hey send him back to Vietnam or why not an African country he has no experience of (he didnt even know he was in England when he escaped)

Or how about the 39 Vietnamese found dead in a Lorry in Essex

How is deporting people to Rwanda going to stop that ? It isn't in any way shape of form so I take great exception to your "LOL" as i can't think of any situation where I would laugh out loud.

The very idea that the possible threat of a deportation to Rwanda will make any difference to the smugglers - i mean you told us they are giving their charges all the info and guidance on how to dispose of ID etc so surely they will just not tell them about Rwanda or explain how there is less chance of being deported than being drowned/suffocated/crushed under a lorry at Calais all of which migrants endure every day.

Straight question to you - How many asylum seekers who are genuine refugees do you think the UK should take in each year ? How many economic migrants do you think we should take in ?

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Time to leave The Court of Common Sense.

One judge passing judgement without sufficient time to read the original court details.

It’s all political, sadly.

It was a panel of three judges, sat in the Court of Appeal, and they were very familiar with the original court details as they heard from many barristers, and ruled on it on Monday!

And the same court (the Court of Appeal of England & Wales) ruled last night that the last three people due to be sent to Rwanda could not be.

Is it now the suggestion that the Court of Common Sense/Court of Appeal should be banned from making rulings in the UK? After 807 years, shall be just abandon all checks & balances on the gov't, let them do anything they want?


Karl Limpert

 

[MOIC]

I was referring to the ruling by the NCHR.

 

[IanSuth]

I was referring to the ruling by the NCHR.

What the one you told us earlier that the UK only had to "take account of" but not follow the ruling of.

Well it appears that the highly experienced team of UK based British judges when they read the ruling of the ECHR decided that actually they might have made a mistake and taking that new info into account they had changed their minds and stopped the flight.

That is how our Jurisprudence works (and has done for hundreds of years)

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

I was referring to the ruling by the NCHR.

That judgment from the ECHR applied to (I believe it was) only one asylum-seeker, it didn't stop the whole plane. The Court of Common Sense completed the process last night, and were more than familiar with the case, having heard it on Monday.


Karl Limpert

 

[MOIC]

I’m quoting what was written in The Times.

The judge in Strasbourg was not convinced that he will be safe in Rwanda, perhaps he had the same concerns when he travelled on a dinghy from France.

As I said, it’s all political, on both sides.

 

[MOIC]

That judgment from the ECHR applied to (I believe it was) only one asylum-seeker, it didn't stop the whole plane. The Court of Common Sense completed the process last night, and were more than familiar with the case, having heard it on Monday.


Karl Limpert

I wasn’t referring to the Court of Appeal.

Move on with a different argument, other than ‘Brexit voters got what they wished for’.

Can it get any more political??

 

[Employment Law Clinic]

Time to leave The Court of Common Sense.

One judge passing judgement without sufficient time to read the original court details.

It’s all political, sadly.

Of the 100 or so claimants who received a notice of removal, your grievance is with one court, in one case? But it's all political, and we should leave what some people consider is one of the great things we gave to Europe, is very important for us, is a fine thing - the ECHR?


Karl Limpert

 

[IanSuth]

I wasn’t referring to the Court of Appeal.

Move on with a different argument, other than ‘Brexit voters got what they wished for’.

Can it get any more political??

Well if you want to get Political

I personally pointed out to Brexit voters pre brexit and also post Brexit but pre withdrawal agreement that rather than helping control immigration any Brexit that didn't have us staying with the Dublin convention would make it harder not easier to control immigration arriving via Europe as there would be no agreement that we could use to send them back under and we would instead be governed by the Refugee Convention (and following Protocol) which gave us verey little wiggle room once people got here.

I was told (on numerous occasions) that I was peddling "project fear" and the only reason we had so many migrants was because of the EU and open borders

Now those same people (not here) are trying to make out that us being held to the Refugee Convention is the EU's fault.

It is a direct consequence of people voting for a general policy based on headlines without thinking of all the pro's and con's. You can't have one without the other, we have become a 3rd country, that has advantages and disadvantages.

At the beginning of Brexit I was on the remain side just as I thought we would have to remain close enough for trade reasons we wouldnt get enough benefits to outweigh the negatives.

What this govt have done is almost choose the worst possible course to sail - we either had to go full on singapore style free trade pirate island (as suggested by the ERG) or a close EFTA style agreement, there is no profitable/workable middle ground and pretending there is what is causing all the pain. (PS I do have a degree in Economics with a specialism in European money & banking so am not talking out of my posterior)

The migrant issue is a tiny piddly sideshow being blown up by the current cabinet to take the heat off BoJo who should be toast by now as they know they are only in a job whilst he is as any new PM would need to reshuffle

 

[MOIC]

100 claimants from how many thousands that have come over via France, just in the past year alone?

1% approx?

That’s probably a very conservative estimate of asylum seekers who perhaps aren’t legitimate as they don’t have verifiable proof.

In peak times they’ll be approx 500 per day coming over from France, those that get documented.

Then they’ll be shouts of no food, no doctor appointments, waiting lists in hospitals, unscrupulous landlords, council service cutbacks and the list goes on and on and on….

I’m all for taking in genuine asylum seekers, but there has to be a system to ensure that those that come over for a ‘free ride’ (perhaps 1%) are rejected and sent back to France, who will create a stink if this was to happen.

 

[MOIC]

Well if you want to get Political

I personally pointed out to Brexit voters pre brexit and also post Brexit but pre withdrawal agreement that rather than helping control immigration any Brexit that didn't have us staying with the Dublin convention would make it harder not easier to control immigration arriving via Europe as there would be no agreement that we could use to send them back under and we would instead be governed by the Refugee Convention (and following Protocol) which gave us verey little wiggle room once people got here.

I was told (on numerous occasions) that I was peddling "project fear" and the only reason we had so many migrants was because of the EU and open borders

Now those same people (not here) are trying to make out that us being held to the Refugee Convention is the EU's fault.

It is a direct consequence of people voting for a general policy based on headlines without thinking of all the pro's and con's. You can't have one without the other, we have become a 3rd country, that has advantages and disadvantages.

At the beginning of Brexit I was on the remain side just as I thought we would have to remain close enough for trade reasons we wouldnt get enough benefits to outweigh the negatives.

What this govt have done is almost choose the worst possible course to sail - we either had to go full on singapore style free trade pirate island (as suggested by the ERG) or a close EFTA style agreement, there is no profitable/workable middle ground and pretending there is what is causing all the pain. (PS I do have a degree in Economics with a specialism in European money & banking so am not talking out of my posterior)

The migrant issue is a tiny piddly sideshow being blown up by the current cabinet to take the heat off BoJo who should be toast by now as they know they are only in a job whilst he is as any new PM would need to reshuffle

Back to the Brexit debate. Get over it.

I have no interest in getting political.

Out of curiosity, how many have you or people you know, taken in persons who have been granted asylum?

 

[IanSuth]

100 claimants from how many thousands that have come over via France, just in the past year alone?

1% approx?

That’s probably a very conservative estimate of asylum seekers who perhaps aren’t legitimate as they don’t have verifiable proof.

In peak times they’ll be approx 500 per day coming over from France, those that get documented.

Then they’ll be shouts of no food, no doctor appointments, waiting lists in hospitals, unscrupulous landlords, council service cutbacks and the list goes on and on and on….

I’m all for taking in genuine asylum seekers, but there has to be a system to ensure that those that come over for a ‘free ride’ (perhaps 1%) are rejected and sent back to France, who will create a stink if this was to happen.

As I (and others) have said, there is a simple solution and it is one the French have agreed to

Create a processing centre in France (away from the coast) - when the prospective refugees arrive fingerprint them and take their claim including why they want to come to the Uk rather than stay in France.

Any with a valid reason why the UK such as close family links with those already legally here can come over by a safe means.

Any that are declined who then appear in the UK (verifiable by those fingerprints we took) can then be legally deported as they have come here via an illegal means AFTER all legal means had been exhausted.

You could equally have one in Greece or Turkey for those coming via the Eastern Med route and one in Gibraltar/Spain for those coming western med but those have not been agreed by a host country like the french one

What are the negatives (other than the political one of having to admit that there is not a 90% economic migrant make up of those trying to get here) ?

 

[IanSuth]

Back to the Brexit debate. Get over it.

I have no interest in getting political.

Out of curiosity, how many have you or people you know, taken in persons who have been granted asylum?

I know someone who is trying to take in a Ukrainian one, but even though their house was previously assessed as suitable for childminding they are struggling to get approved.

I didnt know you could even take in non Ukranian asylum seekers legally

I did work in recruitment for 28 years and come across numerous dodgily altered or faked visas of which the IND did nothing when i tried to alert them

And it is impossible to separate Brexit and this current situation as they are causally linked

 

[MOIC]

I don’t disagree and it’s similar to what I suggested in the early part of this thread.

I would argue that those that have made it to the UK by ‘illegal’ means and then processed for deportation, there will still be an outcry by those that are protesting now, including the lawyers.

 

[IanSuth]

I don’t disagree and it’s similar to what I suggested in the early part of this thread.

I would argue that those that have made it to the UK by ‘illegal’ means and then processed for deportation, there will still be an outcry by those that are protesting now, including the lawyers.

And i would join you in saying those protesters are stupid

If a person has exhausted the legal means of gaining asylum and then arrives they are de facto illegal and can be deported to wherever we have them on file as coming from. The lawyers wouldnt be able to do much if the legal means had been exhausted as by definition there would be no more legal route to go down

 

[MOIC]

Human Rights stretches a long way and knows no bounds!

Given there was ‘only’ 100 scheduled to be on the plane, that probably represents 1% of those processed the past year.

I think that’s probably a fair representation of asylum seekers without verifiable information.

 

[UkAppCoder]

Well if you want to get Political

I personally pointed out to Brexit voters pre brexit and also post Brexit but pre withdrawal agreement that rather than helping control immigration any Brexit that didn't have us staying with the Dublin convention would make it harder not easier to control immigration arriving via Europe as there would be no agreement that we could use to send them back under and we would instead be governed by the Refugee Convention (and following Protocol) which gave us verey little wiggle room once people got here.

What are talking about? There is an 80-seat majority's worth of "wiggle room", which is a consequence of how the people feel about this issue! You sound as though you don't have a clue what's happening.

That's the trouble with you lawyer types. You think everyone is obliged to follow your rules and will automatically abide by any law you care to quote.

Well they don't and they won't.

ELC and Newchodge, I've told the pair of you before - get out of those offices and take a look around in the real world. And stop running around in those silly ridiculous party outfits and wigs - you're not impressing anyone and they don't make you look important.

Next thing you'll be calling yourselves "honourable" and "right honourable" like those clowns in the commons.

It's always the ones who like to dress up in pointless daft uniforms isn't it?

I mean, take that Welby thick-head guy who runs around wearing an even more ridiculous religous party hat and costume trying to come across like some immortal divine authority; well he should just keep his nose out of the real world because his stupid fantasy holy-ghosty logic is not welcome here.

Then there's that big dopey-faced prince of yours who thinks that we're impressed by that ludicrous chest-full of chocolate medals that he hasn't earned. What an absolute insult to the real heroes of our armed forces who actually participated in horrendously bloody and painful battles to defend us. If I were in charge I'd march a troop down to those palaces and turf the lot of them out on their arses and freeze their assets and give them each a map to the nearest jobcentre, including Boo-Hoo Harry who after just two weeks in Afghanistan started bubbling like a big baby about his nappy being soiled and needing to get home to his palace because one of the wires on his tent-bed snapped and ended up up his corn hole - what a pathetic little brat.

@IanSuth. Do you really think people have the time to be reading all your daft articles which no doubt I'm going to disagree with on the whole anyway, the reason being because you quoted them? I could go out on the web and quote plenty of articles. Would you read them all? Of course not for the very reason I've just given you. I think you're just a phoney and a hypocrite, Suth, because if you really cared about these people as much as you profess then you wouldn't be mincing around here talking shice every day, you'd be out there actually helping those poor people and you certainly wouldn't be supporting people-traffickers and slave-masters who have absolutely no problem with sending babies and children out into the English channel to face freezing cold weather and a very real prospect of death. So get off your moral high horse, Suth, and do something instead of just mouthing off about how much you care and about what a great guy you are because nobody believes it.

 

[NickGrogan]

As I (and others) have said, there is a simple solution and it is one the French have agreed to

Create a processing centre in France (away from the coast) - when the prospective refugees arrive fingerprint them and take their claim including why they want to come to the Uk rather than stay in France.

Any with a valid reason why the UK such as close family links with those already legally here can come over by a safe means.

Any that are declined who then appear in the UK (verifiable by those fingerprints we took) can then be legally deported as they have come here via an illegal means AFTER all legal means had been exhausted.

You could equally have one in Greece or Turkey for those coming via the Eastern Med route and one in Gibraltar/Spain for those coming western med but those have not been agreed by a host country like the french one

What are the negatives (other than the political one of having to admit that there is not a 90% economic migrant make up of those trying to get here) ?

Sounds simple enough, and a good idea, but how long does it take to go through all the appeals that are due if someone is declined and where will they stay for that period?

I suspect that lawyers would find a way to make this illegal,so you'd be left with offshore processing and people also coming as they are now.

Why not just have open borders?

No border force, no asylum lawyers, sack most of the home office.

 

[Newchodge]

ELC and Newchodge, I've told the pair of you before - get out of those offices and take a look around in the real world. And stop running around in those silly ridiculous party outfits and wigs - you're not impressing anyone and they don't make you look important.

I have never, ever worn anything but a business suit, in or out of court. I rather assume that @Employment Law Clinic is the same. Please stop making stupid, ridiciulous childish points. You're not impressing anyone and they it makes you look pathetic.

 

[IanSuth]

Sounds simple enough, and a good idea, but how long does it take to go through all the appeals that are due if someone is declined and where will they stay for that period?

I suspect that lawyers would find a way to make this illegal,so you'd be left with offshore processing and people also coming as they are now.

Why not just have open borders?

No border force, no asylum lawyers, sack most of the home office.

No idea how long they take but during the process they will be in France under French governmental support rather than in a UK Hotel, and as long as there were not abnormal delays (which ps we have at present as we dont resource the system enough) they would have no defence if they tried to buck the system and skip the queue.

Being in France all processing would have to comply with ECJ procedures which I suspect is actually the reason we won't do it - sheer bloody minded principle

Setting it up would in my guess be covered by the saved Hotel/bedsit bills within a month or 2

 

[MOIC]

Setting it up would in my guess be covered by the saved Hotel/bedsit bills within a month or 2

It's currently 5 million a day . . . . . . and rising!

We mustn't forget the 'asylum seekers' who enter the UK undetected with the help of not only the people traffickers abroad, but also accomplices in the UK.

People traffickers are the problem. Stop/restrict them and the situation will improve.

 

[Financial-Modeller]

Not sure if anyone has already mentioned it but the simple and obvious deterrent is to reduce the financial benefit of settling in UK to the same level as is enjoyed settling in any of the other countries that many of the people in question will have travelled through to reach the UK.

Those with genuine reason to want to enter the UK would no longer be competing with those who could freely choose from several other countries which would at that point provide a similar welcome to that of the UK.

 

[Newchodge]

Not sure if anyone has already mentioned it but the simple and obvious deterrent is to reduce the financial benefit of settling in UK to the same level as is enjoyed settling in any of the other countries that many of the people in question will have travelled through to reach the UK.

Those with genuine reason to want to enter the UK would no longer be competing with those who could freely choose from several other countries which would at that point provide a similar welcome to that of the UK.

As I understand it the state benefits receivable in France (for asylum seekers) are higher than those in the UK.

 

[IanSuth]

Not sure if anyone has already mentioned it but the simple and obvious deterrent is to reduce the financial benefit of settling in UK to the same level as is enjoyed settling in any of the other countries that many of the people in question will have travelled through to reach the UK.

Those with genuine reason to want to enter the UK would no longer be competing with those who could freely choose from several other countries which would at that point provide a similar welcome to that of the UK.

I was about to say the same as Cyndy - we actually have very low benefits for asylum seekers.

It may be that they read the right wing uk press and believe the streets are paved with gold but that is not the case. From what i understand it is extended family here and the fact English is a common language around the world (more so than French) that draws them here

I would agree the drain on the exchequer from the huge backlog of cases sat not working in hotels and hostels is excessive and unsustainable - BUT that is because we have allowed the backlog to grow and won't let them work.

Why not have a scheme where those awaiting decisions have the option work in areas that are either short of labour or where they have particular skills, pay them minimum wage then deduct and amount to cover lodgings. I am sure living on £8 a week staring at the walls is not much fun so many would jump at the chance.

Process them in France and you overnight remove a lot of the demand for people smugglers business PLUS we would actually have a justification for assuming those arriving through other means were less likely to be legit

 

[MOIC]

A theory to discuss (which I'm expecting a lot of flack to) . . . .

Asylum seekers from a specific continent should seek asylum in countries of the same continent.

Why?

1. Cultural familiarity

2. Language similarity (in some cases)

3. Close to their country of origin, should things improve there.

4. Food similarities

5. Religious majority practices (in some cases)

Of course there will be instances where this may not work, but in the most part they should, as long as countries are willing to be part of this international policy.

OK, hit me with the criticism . . . . .

 

[MOIC]

It may be that they read the right wing uk press and believe the streets are paved with gold but that is not the case

Politics again. . . . . . . .

It might be a case that they know they can slip into the black market and no-one will blink an eyelid.

 

[Newchodge]

A theory to discuss (which I'm expecting a lot of flack to) . . . .

Asylum seekers from a specific continent should seek asylum in countries of the same continent.

Why?

1. Cultural familiarity

2. Language similarity (in some cases)

3. Close to their country of origin, should things improve there.

4. Food similarities

5. Religious majority practices (in some cases)

Of course there will be instances where this may not work, but in the most part they should, as long as countries are willing to be part of this international policy.

OK, hit me with the criticism . . . . .

Usually the countries in the same continent are 'developing countries', least likely to be able to bear the cost.

Frequently there are major hostilities between neighbouring countries, especially when one of them is facing a national emergency generating asylum seekers.

Despite that the vast majority DO stay in countries very close to the one they are leaving, look at the number of Ukrainians in Poland, Syrians in camps in the surrounding areas and so on.

International law places an obligation on all countries to assist asylum seekers.

 

[IanSuth]

Politics again. . . . . . . .

It might be a case that they know they can slip into the black market and no-one will blink an eyelid.

A lot harder than it used to be

No cash in hand temp jobs now, so the people who will pay under the table can take an even bigger amount off the day rate knowing people who are asking for cash in hand has less options.

Only way around that though is serious OTT "paper please" style ID cards and checks.

The IND/Border force carry out an awful lot of raids on building sites/farms/restaurants nowadays precisely as they know they are the places that still do employ under the table

And yes it is politics because things like ID cards, perception of number of migrants and their "danger" is totally driven by politics and the rhetoric of politician's, that is life and has been since the Athenians started democracy (PS I studied that as well and the ancient athenans were having exactly the same debates and ended up with a system where the migrant (metic) had to have a citizen sponsor (prostates) which allowed them to stay and have access to the courts but they couldn't own property, had to pay taxes and be liable for military service plus could be expelled if they committed any crime (along with their sponsor being fined)

EDIT: Forgot to add, if you came without a sponsor you were liable to end up as a slave

 

[MOIC]

Politics is too polarised nowadays. It's one or the other with nothing in between.

It distorts from the real issues.

Perhaps that's the problem.

 

[NickGrogan]

A theory to discuss (which I'm expecting a lot of flack to) . . . .

Asylum seekers from a specific continent should seek asylum in countries of the same continent.

Why?

1. Cultural familiarity

2. Language similarity (in some cases)

3. Close to their country of origin, should things improve there.

4. Food similarities

5. Religious majority practices (in some cases)

Of course there will be instances where this may not work, but in the most part they should, as long as countries are willing to be part of this international policy.

OK, hit me with the criticism . . . . .

I think that this is what happens already. The number of asylum seekers that make it to other continents is very small, compared to the number of asylum seekers in total.