But you keep coming back to asylum seekers and then pointing out they’re not migrants as per the title of the thread?Don't think anyone said this?
Just that you, and possibly others, seem to operate on the conclusion that anyone in the news who is a 'migrant' has crossed by boat specifically
Moth explained in very good and clear detail on how UK law works when it comes to asylum seekers. Is it 97% that claim asylum when they arrive or more? The figure has been quoted an awful lot anywayBut you keep coming back to asylum seekers and then pointing out they’re not migrants as per the title of the thread?
And you’re working on the assumption that all migrants are asylum seekers, when that’s not true.Moth explained in very good and clear detail on how UK law works when it comes to asylum seekers. Is it 97% that claim asylum when they arrive or more? The figure has been quoted an awful lot anyway
Given the first page I would assume the topic includes, and is primarily focused, on asylum seekers. You seem to work on the assumption that migrant = arrived by boat, and I can't tell if this is something the government messaging/media is leading you to believe or what is going on
Good grief, it wasn't questioned because they were black it was questioned because it was a single instance of trafficking which was completely unrelated to people fleeing their home countries due to war or persecution.They don’t have to say it ,it’s clear when they make out there’s an “ agenda “ or mention right wing or speculate to what type of newspapers you read , why you post articles that include black people even though they’re on trial accused of trafficking , then when you challenge them they try and gaslight
Maybe because you said people can be trafficked from Manchester to Liverpool it’s not just FOREIGNERS that do it ( or something to that degree) made me think that.Good grief, it wasn't questioned because they were black it was questioned because it was a single instance of trafficking which was completely unrelated to people fleeing their home countries due to war or persecution.
It seems you're just as capable of jumping to conclusions as anyone else.
Only to highlight the fact that this thread isn't about trafficking as a whole, and further prove that the article you shared was irrelevant to the discussion. You tried to relate someone being trafficked into the country under false pretenses to the trafficking which occurs due to the Channel crossings.Maybe because you said people can be trafficked from Manchester to Liverpool it’s not just FOREIGNERS that do it ( or something to that degree) made me think that.
Actually it was London not Liverpool
That's absolutely right. However I the article suggests that because Brexit removed our ability to return people under the Dublin Conventions it has created a backlog of people that should be leaving the country and encouraged people to cross the Channel because they know we have very limited options to remove them once they are here. The main suggestion is that the government must urgently seek to replace the Dublin Convention with new agreements. I'm sure you would agree with that.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.
It’s not irrelevant to me when you were blatantly insinuating I was being racistOnly to highlight the fact that this thread isn't about trafficking as a whole, and further prove that the article you shared was irrelevant to the discussion. You tried to relate someone being trafficked into the country under false pretenses to the trafficking which occurs due to the Channel crossings.
Yes, trafficking happens to those who come here through irregular or illegal routes to seek asylum, but trafficking as a general crime (such as Nigerian politicians taking advantage of poor market sellers to harvest their organs or people being trafficked from one end of the UK to the other) has nothing to do with this thread.
At this point, I have to believe that making strawman arguments are your superpower because you have a special way of bringing up the most irrelevant points which cause the discussion to stray.
Weird ,when I said that I was the worst in the world, 1951 con and the literal term for asylum seeker was thrown with forceThat's absolutely right. However I the article suggests that because Brexit removed our ability to return people under the Dublin Conventions it has created a backlog of people that should be leaving the country and encouraged people to cross the Channel because they know we have very limited options to remove them once they are here. The main suggestion is that the government must urgently seek to replace the Dublin Convention with new agreements. I'm sure you would agree with that.
Except I explicitly told you I didn't think you were racist or being racist. Strawmanning and derailing as per.It’s not irrelevant to me when you were blatantly insinuating I was being racist
Only after you accused me of baiting and said I should’ve put a disclaimerExcept I explicitly told you I didn't think you were racist or being racist. Strawmanning and derailing as per.
View attachment 1949741
Thank you.Moth explained in very good and clear detail on how UK law works when it comes to asylum seekers. Is it 97% that claim asylum when they arrive or more? The figure has been quoted an awful lot anyway
Given the first page I would assume the topic includes, and is primarily focused, on asylum seekers. You seem to work on the assumption that migrant = arrived by boat, and I can't tell if this is something the government messaging/media is leading you to believe or what is going on
Actually….Moth explained in very good and clear detail on how UK law works when it comes to asylum seekers. Is it 97% that claim asylum when they arrive or more? The figure has been quoted an awful lot anyway
Given the first page I would assume the topic includes, and is primarily focused, on asylum seekers. You seem to work on the assumption that migrant = arrived by boat, and I can't tell if this is something the government messaging/media is leading you to believe or what is going on
Bet you can’t find any concrete data on how many illegals are in the country or how they’re supporting themselves.Thank you.
I found a figure that 91% applied for asylum and I calculated that meant the remaining 9% equated to 4,000 odd people. There are also reports from 2021 that say that 98% of people crossing channel apply for asylum (Home Office figure).
It's a bit more difficult to find out what happens to the few that don't apply for asylum but as far as I am aware there is no route for them to stay by applying for any other status. Surely anybody that doesn't apply for asylum is simply an illegal immigrant and subject to detention and removal. This is why one of the things I find difficult to understand is the talk about 'genuine economic migrants'. As far as I am concerned a 'genuine economic migrant' would equate to someone coming to the UK under a work visa (or perhaps another type of visa). They wouldn't be crossing the channel in a small boat so I don't understand why they get mentioned.
Sounds like they set someone up to bait a suspected asylum seeker. Even if it shows that some sort of education should be given on expectations of behaviour due to cultural differences or whatever (seems to be suggested by the video too), it’s not done with “good” intentions and leads to problems like the aboveApparently sparked by this, maybe she’s a stooge, maybe not, either way those fires are being stoked and it’s only going to lead to tragedy the gov need to act .
That’s what I’ve been trying to explain for most of the thread but people aren’t seeing itSounds like they set someone up to bait a suspected asylum seeker. Even if it shows that some sort of education should be given on expectations of behaviour due to cultural differences or whatever (seems to be suggested by the video too), it’s not done with “good” intentions and leads to problems like the above
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?