• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

scaramanga said:
Accepting applications from overseas? Yeah - that's the only way it can or will ever work.

Accept a reasonable number of applications made through the correct processes in a legal manner. Automatically reject all applications made from within the UK as the law has already been broken to get here.
Click to expand...

There is no overseas application method for anyone but Ukrainians and there was a short window for some Afghans. and you know this.
 
LutonSpurs said:
No, it was asylum via a route opened for Ukrainians alone.

Also you do not understand the law. Yes they may have made an illegal journey here but once they apply for asylum they are not illegal and they can do that as soon as they arrive. How come all of you right wingers pretend not to have any brains when it comes to understanding the law?
Click to expand...
I understand how that works. My arguments is that it shouldn't work that way. We should allow applications from overseas and accept the first (agreed upon number). Nobody arriving here illegally should be considered.

I know that's not how it currently works, I know that illegal status is held during an asylum application. My point is that this system is not only needlessly expensive but also a huge pull factor for illegal immigration.
 
scaramanga said:
But look how well it worked. Why not just use common sense and repeat for all other applications?
Click to expand...
That is what people are arguing for. Safe and legal routes.

The counterargument from the right is that this would invite more applications than the current number. And it is likely your 'agreed upon number' would be set higher as the UK has reduced intake now because of it's geography. That would cause some tiny minds to implode.
 
Rorschach said:
That is what people are arguing for. Safe and legal routes.

The counterargument from the right is that this would invite more applications than the current number. And it is likely your 'agreed upon number' would be set higher as the UK has reduced intake now because of it's geography. That would cause some tiny minds to implode.
Click to expand...
The number can be whatever the elected parliament chooses it to be for that year. If people don't like it, they can vote for a party that will change it (up or down).

EDIT:
And it will invite more applications. We don't have to accept them all.
 
scaramanga said:
The number can be whatever the elected parliament chooses it to be for that year. If people don't like it, they can vote for a party that will change it (up or down).

EDIT:
And it will invite more applications. We don't have to accept them all.
Click to expand...
If the government can set an arbitrary number, like zero for instance, then that will be abused and needless to say would not be your fair share.

Of course you don't have to accept them all. The asylum process will decide if they are valid or not. Most that apply are approved now, but the throughput is slow, hence the hotel mess.
 
Rorschach said:
If the government can set an arbitrary number, like zero for instance, then that will be abused and needless to say would not be your fair share.

Of course you don't have to accept them all. The asylum process will decide if they are valid or not. Most that apply are approved now, but the throughput is slow, hence the hotel mess.
Click to expand...
If the electorate wants zero, then the number should be zero. I, personally, don't think it should be. I also don't believe that most people would object to a reasonable number - like 10-20k per year.

Most of the arguments against all asylum claims go away with proper pre-screening.
 
Rorschach said:
That is what people are arguing for. Safe and legal routes.

The counterargument from the right is that this would invite more applications than the current number. And it is likely your 'agreed upon number' would be set higher as the UK has reduced intake now because of it's geography. That would cause some tiny minds to implode.
Click to expand...

I think we should accept our pre-determined quota direct from UN aid camps on the periphery of warzones. That's how you guarantee they are the most needy.
 
scaramanga said:
What a strange view you have of the world. A handful of bleating racists do not represent the majority here. I'd be surprised if most of them even vote.
Click to expand...

You have totally not addressed the racist nature of the Ukraine asylum seekers system. They were allowed to fly in and apply. The rest have no means for legal entry.
 
Gutter Boy said:
I think we should accept our pre-determined quota direct from UN aid camps on the periphery of warzones. That's how you guarantee they are the most needy.
Click to expand...
I would say that is too limiting. There are many reasons for seeking asylum beyond war, though obviously, everything helps. By a big margin, refugees just move to the next country anyway. If they cross a continent and/or body of water to get to the UK, it is nearly always for reasons other than just getting away from flying bullets. There is usually an additional reason for their journey - some other tie they have with the UK.
 
scaramanga said:
If the electorate wants zero, then the number should be zero. I, personally, don't think it should be. I also don't believe that most people would object to a reasonable number - like 10-20k per year.

Most of the arguments against all asylum claims go away with proper pre-screening.
Click to expand...
That number is too small, but the idea that numbers are based on the whim of a minister is also wrong.
 
LutonSpurs said:
You have totally not addressed the racist nature of the Ukraine asylum seekers system. They were allowed to fly in and apply. The rest have no means for legal entry.
Click to expand...
Until you can explain why allowing Ukrainian asylum seekers to apply for asylum is racist then I don't see what difference it makes.
 
scaramanga said:
The "1 in 1 out" deal is terrible, that's not what I mean. We had a deal with the French where we would put in the means for applying for UK asylum in Calais. We would transport over those we accepted and the rest would stay in France. The French scuppered that deal.
Click to expand...
I was just asking how the 1 in 1 out worked? Not comparing it to anything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back