The colour of their skin is the problem for these type of people.
I haven’t heard any of the trouble makers, mention the cost of housing the asylum seekers
You are correct that Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 does make it illegal to land on British soil without authorisation. UK law also allows a person to make an asylum claim even if they entered illegally — Section 24 does not block this.
2 Likes
Backed up by international law I believe, which is why the Tories (and Farrago) are so keen to rescind the UK’s membership of the European Court of Human Rights.
(As well as the unwritten laws of common humanity).
3 Likes
NotALot, you write as if these were people who had a choice. Far right propaganda has really muddied the waters. You can’t legally apply for asylum unless on UK. Secondly, asylum seekers are people fleeing from their culture of origin because there’s no alternative. If they stay, they face death, imprisonment or torture for basic things like their political or religious beliefs or their sexual orientation. Thirdly and most importantly, the UK is a signatory to international human rights law. Indeed we helped write quite a lot of it after WWII. During WWII there was the exact same xenophobia about giving asylum to desperate Jewish people seeking to immigrate. It led the government to take the absolute minimum of Jewish refugees. Think what they were fleeing and how you might feel if you were in that situation. Would you want to be treated as a criminal after being forced to leave behind your home, your family and everything you possessed?
8 Likes
While I agree with 99% of what you wrote, playing devil’s advocate there is one (and really only one) factor against the UK giving asylum to the folks who come across on boats. And that is that they are technically “fleeing” from a safe country, France, in which they could have claimed asylum, and probably via several others e.g. Italy and Greece.
They didn’t hop off the plane directly from Afghanistan.
Of course there may be reasons why they wanted to get to the UK, such as having family already here, which is understandable. But as far as asylum claims go those ought to have been done at the point of arrival in the EU, and then they can sort out where they want to live in a legal manner.
That said, it would make much more sense to me for the UK to have an asylum processing centre in Calais which would at least avoid the deaths in the Channel and cut the bloodsucking people smugglers out of the equation.
3 Likes
But the same example applies.
Why did people fleeing horrendous circumstances in the Third Reich come to England? Do you think that distance should negate the UK’s responsibility to take on refugees? I think it’s easier to see why this argument is problematic if we consider a situation which, historically, we all know to have been a terrible evil.
Also there is this, which may be of interest. It shows that other European states do take in far more than we do. Including France.
1 Like
But, of course, there is absolutely no obligation that they do so. It’s just another justification for the UK to do less.
1 Like
The wheels creaking
This government proposal may well be a deterrent to some immigrants but changes will not be put into place until the spring. A wait of 2 years, as done in Denmark and Switzerland may not be enough of a deterrent on its own. Withdrawing housing assistance and free healthcare for a period of years after immigrant arrival may also be required.
The government is criticised for “tweaking” at the problem, which seems true. They should be pulling out all stops to clear the backlog of asylum applications while imposing new restrictions on family reunions from Today.
The problem is that, by framing it as a “problem” - rather than a duty of care and an opportunity to welcome young fit people who want to work into a safe country the government just send the message that Reform is right.
2 Likes
Oh dear! I fear you are right about failure for duty of care. How do Denmark and Switzerland manage this?
Yes, listening and reading what Mrs. Balls has to say leaves me astonished that I am actually listening to the words of a Labour government. No wonder I feel that I will never visit that blighted* isle ever again. I would feel soiled and uneasy in doing so.
*Am I finally understanding the origin of that description of GB, Blighty? 
True - but had the UK stayed within the Dublin Thingy then such arrivals could if necessary have been returned legally to the EU country they first set foot in.
It’s a problem of the UK’s own making. I don’t blame the asylum seekers for wanting to come to the UK, that’s why I prefaced my remarks with the phrase “playing devil’s advocate”. 
1 Like
Continually harping back to the decisions taken by previous governments is pointless, the here and now is what needs addressing urgently.
I’m a firm believer that immigration helps countries thrive but the UK’s current net migration numbers are simply unsustainable and way higher than those for France and Germany, things have to change. I also don’t buy the “they’re fleeing persecution” argument, maybe many did have legitimate concerns for their wellbeing when they left their homelands months or in some cases years ago but having travelled through countless “safe” countries on route to Northern France should they really be treated as genuine asylum seekers after crossing the Channel illegally?
1 Like
No, perhaps not but as others have said, they should be given the facilities in those other countries to test their justification as true refugees, and why they chose the UK rather than remain safely where they are, in France or wherever.
1 Like
Yvette Cooper outlines her plans ….
But we’ve only just got rid of Pritti !
She is Ms Cooper. Always has been and most likely always will be.
1 Like