English Channel migrant crossing crisis

[monga]

It would really be helpful if you could explain how someone abuses the asylum system.

You've introduced the concept of 'genuine' asylum seekers again. As I've said before there's no such thing as a 'genuine' or 'not genuine' asylum seeker. If someone applies for asylum they are an asylum seeker. It's then up to the authorities to decide if they qualify for asylum or not. Now you correctly believe that some of the people who apply for asylum do not meet the criteria for protection i.e they are not fleeing war or persecution. If that is the case they will not be granted asylum. However how do you propose to identify those people other than by considering their claim?

I don't know why 'genuine' economic migrants get a mention because presumably they are people who have successfully applied for a visa or who are allowed to enter the Uk without one. That has nothing to do with the asylum system so by definition they cannot be abusing it.

The mention of refugees is superfluous. In general terms a refugee that asks for protection is an asylum seeker and in UK Immigration Law a refugee is an asylum seeker that has been granted asylum

Everybody else that comes to the UK without permission (a visa or visa exemption) or who doesn't apply for asylum is an 'illegal immigrant'.

Even the authorities acknowledge it! Yet you can’t / won’t accept it.

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-01-11/abuse-of-asylum-system-is-rife-report-claims

An Asylum System Overwhelmed and Abused

Summary 1. The asylum system is being overwhelmed following a rapid rise in the number of claims (most of which have been submitted by ‘clandestine’ entrants), as well as by growing costs, falling productivity, disintegrating enforcement, ballooning backlogs and significant (and, according to...

www.migrationwatchuk.org

 

[Blueblue123]

Even the authorities acknowledge it! Yet you can’t / won’t accept it.

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-01-11/abuse-of-asylum-system-is-rife-report-claims

An Asylum System Overwhelmed and Abused

Summary 1. The asylum system is being overwhelmed following a rapid rise in the number of claims (most of which have been submitted by ‘clandestine’ entrants), as well as by growing costs, falling productivity, disintegrating enforcement, ballooning backlogs and significant (and, according to...

www.migrationwatchuk.org

Migration Watch UK is a think-tank not an authoritative body.

 

[Moth]

Even the authorities acknowledge it! Yet you can’t / won’t accept it.

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-01-11/abuse-of-asylum-system-is-rife-report-claims

An Asylum System Overwhelmed and Abused

Summary 1. The asylum system is being overwhelmed following a rapid rise in the number of claims (most of which have been submitted by ‘clandestine’ entrants), as well as by growing costs, falling productivity, disintegrating enforcement, ballooning backlogs and significant (and, according to...

www.migrationwatchuk.org

I did 'accept it'. In my previous post I said "Now you correctly believe that some of the people who apply for asylum do not meet the criteria for protection i.e they are not fleeing war or persecution".

I asked you how do you propose to identify those people other than by considering their claim? Which of course you didn't answer.

The government's solution is apparently to refuse to accept any request for asylum ('genuine' or otherwise) from anybody who arrives in the UK by crossing the channel. Is that what you want?
---

Migration Watch UK is a think-tank not an authoritative body.

The other link was to an 4 year old ITV article that contained a quote from "former immigration enforcement chief", David Wood and referred to comments previously made by Sajid Javid as Home Secretary and Civitas a Tufton Street think tank. I don't know if any of them qualify as 'the authorities' but in any case it doesn't matter. Nobody has ever claimed that some people that claim asylum aren't really trying to enter the UK for other reasons. There is ample evidence that the recent growth of applications from Albania is an example of hat. The question is what can be done about other than simply rejecting the asylum applications of people that don't qualify and removing them from the country as soon as possible.

 

[monga]

I did 'accept it'. In my previous post I said "Now you correctly believe that some of the people who apply for asylum do not meet the criteria for protection i.e they are not fleeing war or persecution".

I asked you how do you propose to identify those people other than by considering their claim? Which of course you didn't answer.

The government's solution is apparently to refuse to accept any request for asylum ('genuine' or otherwise) from anybody who arrives in the UK by crossing the channel. Is that what you want?
---



The other link was to an 4 year old ITV article that contained a quote from "former immigration enforcement chief", David Wood and referred to comments previously made by Sajid Javid as Home Secretary and Civitas a Tufton Street think tank. I don't know if any of them qualify as 'the authorities' but in any case it doesn't matter. Nobody has ever claimed that some people that claim asylum aren't really trying to enter the UK for other reasons. There is ample evidence that the recent growth of applications from Albania is an example of hat. The question is what can be done about other than simply rejecting the asylum applications of people that don't qualify and removing them from the country as soon as possible.

Again you wriggle out of the question you asked

You didn’t specify where the examples have to come from, if those things were happening four years ago why wouldn’t they be just as relevant today when there’s more people arriving now than there was back then?

 

[Moth]

Isn’t that why they’re assessed to see what category they fall into ?View attachment 1947158
---

View attachment 1947159
---

View attachment 1947160

Just to clarify (for anyone that is interested). The introduction of a category of 'temporary refugee permission to stay' has nothing to do with someone being an 'economic migrant' or asylum seeker (if indeed that is what was being suggested).

'Permission to stay' used to be a standard 5 year period for all successful asylum seekers. After 5 years those that were found to still qualify for protection would be able to apply to 'settle' in the UK (subject to the normal rules).

The Nationality & Borders Act 2022 introduced a 'two tier system' which includes the option to grant a successful asylum seeker only 'temporary permission to stay' of a period of 2 1/2 years. They will not be able to apply to 'settle' in the UK for 10 years so must continue to apply for renewal of their permission to remain until then. They will only be given limited opportunity to bring family members to join them.

In essence the decision whether to grant 'full' 5 year permission to stay or only 'temporary permission' comes down to whether the applicant arrived in the UK across the Channel. If you did, unless you can show you had a very good reason for doing so, you're only going to get 'temporary permission'.

Some have suggested that this two-tier system is illegal and is another part of the government's new approach to asylum seekers that will be tested in court.

 

[monga]

Migration Watch UK is a think-tank not an authoritative body.

I didn’t say they were I posted it for the stats , are they wrong?
---

Just to clarify (for anyone that is interested). The introduction of a category of 'temporary refugee permission to stay' has nothing to do with someone being an 'economic migrant' or asylum seeker (if indeed that is what was being suggested).

'Permission to stay' used to be a standard 5 year period for all successful asylum seekers. After 5 years those that were found to still qualify for protection would be able to apply to 'settle' in the UK (subject to the normal rules).

The Nationality & Borders Act 2022 introduced a 'two tier system' which includes the option to grant a successful asylum seeker only 'temporary permission to stay' of a period of 2 1/2 years. They will not be able to apply to 'settle' in the UK for 10 years so must continue to apply for renewal of their permission to remain until then. They will only be given limited opportunity to bring family members to join them.

In essence the decision whether to grant 'full' 5 year permission to stay or only 'temporary permission' comes down to whether the applicant arrived in the UK across the Channel. If you did, unless you can show you had a very good reason for doing so, you're only going to get 'temporary permission'.

Some have suggested that this two-tier system is illegal and is another part of the government's new approach to asylum seekers that will be tested in court.

You’re completely avoiding the question altogether then …Like I said you’re trolling me

 

[Moth]

Again you wriggle out of the question you asked View attachment 1947646
You didn’t specify where the examples have to come from, if those things were happening four years ago why wouldn’t they be just as relevant today when there’s more people arriving now than there was back then?

How can I wriggle out of a question I asked - unless I asked myself the question and didn't want to answer myself.

I didn't ask for any examples of anything. I didn't ask for links to any articles. I asked what you meant by abusing the asylum system. You could have answered that yourself in your own words without attaching links. It would have been much more helpful but as usual you refuse to do it.
---

I didn’t say they were I posted it for the stats , are they wrong?
---


You’re completely avoiding the question altogether then …Like I said you’re trolling me View attachment 1947701

The question you asked on the post I commented on was "Isn’t that why they’re assessed to see what category they fall into ?" You then attached pictures of a comment about 'temporary permission to stay' and definitions of 'economic migrant' and 'asylum seeker'.

To be honest I had no idea what your 'question' meant or what was supposed to be the point that you were making with the three links. However I chose to clarify for anyone that was interested (not you obviously) that temporary permission to stay has nothing to do with 'economic migrants'.

I'm sorry that you feel I didn't answer your question. I wasn't trying to but if you'd like explain what your question is I'll have a go

 

[monga]

How can I wriggle out of a question I asked - unless I asked myself the question and didn't want to answer myself.

I didn't ask for any examples of anything. I didn't ask for links to any articles. I asked what you meant by abusing the asylum system. You could have answered that yourself in your own words without attaching links. It would have been much more helpful but as usual you refuse to do it.

Yes you did, I posted the links to see if it helps you better understand ,as many people have previously posted on asylum abuse including the dangers of asylum abuse but again you’re focused on the literal term for asylum seeker which apparently is very dehumanising.
---

How can I wriggle out of a question I asked - unless I asked myself the question and didn't want to answer myself.

I didn't ask for any examples of anything. I didn't ask for links to any articles. I asked what you meant by abusing the asylum system. You could have answered that yourself in your own words without attaching links. It would have been much more helpful but as usual you refuse to do it.
---



The question you asked on the post I commented on was "Isn’t that why they’re assessed to see what category they fall into ?" You then attached pictures of a comment about 'temporary permission to stay' and definitions of 'economic migrant' and 'asylum seeker'.

To be honest I had no idea what your 'question' meant or what was supposed to be the point that you were making with the three links. However I chose to clarify for anyone that was interested (not you obviously) that temporary permission to stay has nothing to do with 'economic migrants'.

I'm sorry that you feel I didn't answer your question. I wasn't trying to but if you'd like explain what your question is I'll have a go

It wasn’t a question it was examples of the different classifications
---

Another example of asylum abuse

Asylum seekers getting Christian tattoos of Jesus to bolster conversion claims, stay in UK

Asylum seekers in the United Kingdom are getting tattoos of crucifixes and Jesus to falsely claim they are converts to Christianity to bolster their case to attain British citizenship which some ...

www.christianpost.com

 

[Moth]

Yes you did, I posted the links to see if it helps you better understand ,as many people have previously posted on asylum abuse including the dangers of asylum abuse but again you’re focused on the literal term for asylum seeker which apparently is very dehumanising.

Why are you showing me that quote? I didn't say it.

I'm only focused on the literal term for asylum seeker (hint: it's asylum seeker) because you have continually demonstrated that either you don't know what it means or you randomly choose different definitions of what it means (for some reason). In a 'discussion' such as this I think being clear what you mean is quite important. Apparently you don't.

The links that you posted in answer to my question to you were irrelevant. I had already acknowledged that you were correct in believing that some asylum seekers "do not meet the criteria for protection i.e they are not fleeing war or persecution" (post #840) To put it in terms that you appear to prefer (even if don't) they are not "genuine asylum seekers"

The links you posted did nothing to answer the question that I asked you ... "how do you propose to identify those people [not-genuine asylum seekers] other than by considering their claim?" I've since asked that question again. Are you prepared to answer it yet?
---

It wasn’t a question it was examples of the different classifications

So "Isn’t that why they’re assessed to see what category they fall into ?" wasn't a question; despite the question mark? I mean I believe you because why would it be?

This is question that perhaps you can answer (or not). "Different classifications" of what?

 

[monga]

Why are you showing me that quote? I didn't say it.

I'm only focused on the literal term for asylum seeker (hint: it's asylum seeker) because you have continually demonstrated that either you don't know what it means or you randomly choose different definitions of what it means (for some reason). In a 'discussion' such as this I think being clear what you mean is quite important. Apparently you don't.

The links that you posted in answer to my question to you were irrelevant. I had already acknowledged that you were correct in believing that some asylum seekers "do not meet the criteria for protection i.e they are not fleeing war or persecution" (post #840) To put it in terms that you appear to prefer (even if don't) they are not "genuine asylum seekers"

The links you posted did nothing to answer the question that I asked you ... "how do you propose to identify those people [not-genuine asylum seekers] other than by considering their claim?" I've since asked that question again. Are you prepared to answer it yet?

I know you didn’t say it it’s literally from the refugee council….We’ve gone over the latter many times there is no clear solution unless they allow applications before arrival but that wouldn’t work in all cases .

The truth about asylum

You can rely on our facts and figures to get the true picture about the situation—and help spread the truth about asylum.

www.refugeecouncil.org.uk

 

[Moth]

I know you didn’t say it it’s literally from the refugee council….We’ve gone over the latter many times there is no clear solution unless they allow applications before arrival but that wouldn’t work in all cases .

The truth about asylum

You can rely on our facts and figures to get the true picture about the situation—and help spread the truth about asylum.

www.refugeecouncil.org.uk

So why in God's name are you going on and on and on about it other than to .... just whinge? Unless of course you're trolling me and I fell for it. I think it might be a bit of both.

 

[monga]

Why are you showing me that quote? I didn't say it.

I'm only focused on the literal term for asylum seeker (hint: it's asylum seeker) because you have continually demonstrated that either you don't know what it means or you randomly choose different definitions of what it means (for some reason). In a 'discussion' such as this I think being clear what you mean is quite important. Apparently you don't.

The links that you posted in answer to my question to you were irrelevant. I had already acknowledged that you were correct in believing that some asylum seekers "do not meet the criteria for protection i.e they are not fleeing war or persecution" (post #840) To put it in terms that you appear to prefer (even if don't) they are not "genuine asylum seekers"

The links you posted did nothing to answer the question that I asked you ... "how do you propose to identify those people [not-genuine asylum seekers] other than by considering their claim?" I've since asked that question again. Are you prepared to answer it yet?
---



So "Isn’t that why they’re assessed to see what category they fall into ?" wasn't a question; despite the question mark? I mean I believe you because why would it be?

This is question that perhaps you can answer (or not). "Different classifications" of what?

It was directed to the person I quoted the other posts are completely separate examples you can clearly see the lines between them _ _ _

---

So why in God's name are you going on and on and on about it other than to .... just whinge? Unless of course you're trolling me and I fell for it. I think it might be a bit of both.

What’s your solution to the issue above, do we just cross our fingers and hope for the best I think we should whinge when there’s thousands of young men being planted amongst our communities mostly with no identification or background checks.

 

[CheshireTea]

I’m just leaving this here… speak no English… coming to our country… thinking this behaviour is ok… never mind about protecting our children and their parents, as long as they get ‘a better life… yeah, let’s keep defending these scumbags

if you support this you’re sick in the head and need checks and deporting yourself!

 

[IngressUK]

Brexit caused small boats crisis in English Channel, report finds

Rishi Sunak should admit ‘main factor’ behind problem so he can fix it, says Durham University study

www.independent.co.uk

Interesting article published this morning

A load of crap.

Before small boats, large numbers of people were arriving illegally in the back of lorries from France all throughout the 2000's and 2010's, when we were in the EU.

The checks carried out on lorries has now been toughened up, which has caused other methods to be used, such as small boats across the channel.
---

I’m just leaving this here… speak no English… coming to our country… thinking this behaviour is ok… never mind about protecting our children and their parents, as long as they get ‘a better life… yeah, let’s keep defending these scumbags

if you support this you’re sick in the head and need checks and deporting yourself!

As I've said before. We've imported a fair number of dross into this country whom need kicking out ASAP.

 

[monga]

It’s been the same in Ireland north and south, this guy was caught and luckily they phoned him a taxi instead of the usual justice we’re used to.

---

Also the case of the 47 yr old man gang raped while walking his dog, it’s not acceptable placing unknowns in communities .

 

[Merpedy]

We’ve had accusations of abduction and the police had to put out statements that the accusations were fake and nothing had actually happened

Im not going to say any of the above is fake, but Facebook isn’t the best source of news. And before Monga comes at me with random articles, the people should be dealt with accordingly. The government should probably try to strike up a deal with the EU on sharing criminal data again too, and I’m sure there are other things that can be done
Anyway, as is normally the case, it also doesn’t affect the right of people to claim asylum in the UK. Nor does it seem to be known or confirmed that these specific people are asylum seekers

I’ll be calling our HO to ask for a Rwanda notice don’t worry

 

[monga]

We’ve had accusations of abduction and the police had to put out statements that the accusations were fake and nothing had actually happened

Im not going to say any of the above is fake, but Facebook isn’t the best source of news. And before Monga comes at me with random articles, the people should be dealt with accordingly. The government should probably try to strike up a deal with the EU on sharing criminal data again too, and I’m sure there are other things that can be done
Anyway, as is normally the case, it also doesn’t affect the right of people to claim asylum in the UK. Nor does it seem to be known or confirmed that these specific people are asylum seekers

I’ll be calling our HO to ask for a Rwanda notice don’t worry

What if the EU don’t have any data? There’s people arriving with fake and no id how can they prove who they are?
---

Not to mention the tax payer funding their trials, this was an appalling case of a young woman jogging

 

[Merpedy]

What if the EU don’t have any data? There’s people arriving with fake and no id how can they prove who they are?

Fingerprints

---

If I’m reading that right you’re confusing migrants and asylum seekers yet again

 

[monga]

Fingerprints
View attachment 1949148
---

If I’m reading that right you’re confusing migrants and asylum seekers yet again

Those apprehended

 

[Merpedy]

Those apprehended

Which normally means arrested
Criminal databases are useless if you’re just putting everyone on them because you don’t like them or because they did something petty. No system is perfect after all but I did think your problem was with criminals specifically?
Having their names and documents also doesn’t necessarily mean anything. As I said before, do you genuinely believe some of these countries have strong criminal databases or can be trusted to share information that isn’t faked? It doesn’t exactly look great when your citizens are fleeing the country

Anyway, I get the idea that this just comes down to the usual argument of everyone/the majority of asylum seekers are dangerous and more articles about people who aren’t asylum seekers, and if they are the question is likely why the HO didn’t do anything. The theme seems to be that the HO and our government is more interested in showy policies like Rwanda rather than trying to tackle actual issues with the asylum process they have going on right now