UK will finally off shore illegal asylum seekers crossing the channel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120963156#Comment_120963156

so you're an asylum seeker or illegal migrant but not illegal asylum seeker (it's not a real phrase)

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120963222#Comment_120963222

Albania isn't in the EU, if it was they wouldn't need to claim asylum as they can just come and live here.

Also, asylum seekers can come from 'safe countries '

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120963235#Comment_120963235

It's like the 'fake refugee ' they are so keen on using

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120963256#Comment_120963256

Safe countries ......

Would they happen to be bogus

You can live in a 'safe' country but still be a victim of persecution.

The United States is deemed a modern, developed, 'safe' country yet transgender people are having to cross state lines in order to escape persecution in other states.

There are now things called 'Sanctuary States' for transgender people.

Imagine that, in the United States of America states have had to declare themselves to be safe havens for American citizens.

Peregrinus

It's never, ever illegal to seek asylum and there is no law in the UK, or any other country I know of, which makes it illegal. The people who lie about this are lying liars and the people who believe them are idiots. With views so wholly detached from reality they can have no useful contribution to make to discussions about how the issue of asylum seekers might best be addressed.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120963392#Comment_120963392

Nope.

It's nothing to do with the country. I wonder why people try to continually push this, even when they themselves understand, it's as if they want to push lies

Gatling

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120963447#Comment_120963447

Not true....

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120963420#Comment_120963420

It's never illegal to "seek asylum", but those crossing the channel are not asylum seekers; they're economic migrants masquerading as asylum seekers. It's illegitimate to begin with; it's a farce. All you need to do is look at how almost half of the migrants who cross the English channel are from Albania. Not a war-torn African country, but a safe European country.

I already saw another poster say, "Oh but you can still be persecuted even if you are from a safe country". Well that's all very convenient, isn't it?

Albania is a safe country. If someone felt persecuted, they could seek asylum in many, many other neighbouring countries. They wouldn't need to travel to the French coastline to pay an illegal smuggling gang to ship them through illegitimate channels across the water to make it to the UK.

If we had tens of thousands of Albanians crossing the Irish Sea to illegally make it to this country, we'd be outraged -- and rightly so.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120963918#Comment_120963918

Couple of points:

Anyone who seeks asylum is an asylum seeker. That's literally what the words mean.

People on the right love to make a distinction between asylum seekers and economic migrants, and to pretend that if you are an economic migrant you cannot be an asylum seeker. This is totally bogus. It's obvious that someone in genuine need of protection may also have an economic motivation for migrating; in many cases economic disadvantage is part of, or a consequence of, the oppression that they are seeking to escape. Thus characterising someone as an economic migrant tells you precisely nothing about whether they have a well-founded fear of persecution or another basis for seeking protection. An economic migrant can not only be an asylum seeker, but can be a successful asylum seeker.

As for whether Albania is a safe country — that's not really the question. What matters is not whether the applicant is a citizen of a "safe country", but whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group or, failing that, whether the applicant is at risk of suffering serious harm if they return to their own country. The process is not one of making a judgment about a country and then applying that judgment to all applicants from that country, regardless of their circumstances, but rather of making a judgment about the individual applicant. It's entirely possible — and indeed very common — for a country to be safe for one applicant but not safe for another, which just highlights the uselessness of generalised judgments about "safe countries".

The fact that applicants have passed through other countries is likewise not really relevant. There is no requirement that applicant seek protection in the first country they enter, and no rule that only the first country they enter is obliged to offer them protection. The reasons for not having such a rule are pretty obvious - the whole point of the international protection system is to ensure that protection is available. Minimising the number of countries offering that protection would run directly counter to this.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120964084#Comment_120964084

What's more likely -- that some Albanians have been persecuted over a long period of time, or that tens of thousands of Albanians are systematically and have been suddenly persecuted over the past 2-years, and need to make it to the UK? The French coastline must suddenly be reached.

Nah, I don't buy it. There isn't a sudden mass persecution of Albanians; if there were, we'd know about it.

This is economic migration and economic migration alone, and the channel is seen as the means through which they can illegally enter the UK. That would also explain why they throw their documents in the English channel (which is what allows them to apply as asylum seekers under false pretences).

For migrants outside of Europe, they don't even make a secret that they're making the journey on economic grounds alone:

https://twitter.com/DouglasKMurray/status/1689839450723934208

Mkamryn

Indeed, the UK's approach to address the issue of illegal immigration via small boats is a significant step. The trial involving sending some asylum seekers to Rwanda is a unique strategy to handle a complex challenge. While the £120 million cost might seem high, it reflects a commitment to finding a more humane solution . The success of this approach will likely be closely watched, especially given its departure from what EU countries can do.

Cordell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120964130#Comment_120964130

It depends on the dream - if the dream is to be a neurosurgeon and you have the intellect to achieve it in a civilized country then we should welcome them. But in this case I think the dream was to be housed and fed for free and in that case the door mush be shown.

We can't simply welcome anyone coming here with broad claims like economic hardship, we need to be able to once again say tough luck, get back there and work harder to build your country.

Peregrinus

If what you say is true, you would expect most of the applications from Albania to be unsuccessful, and the obvious way for the UK to deal with this "crisis" would be to resource and operate its asylum application assessment process.

Yet we observe that the reverse is happening. The UK is spending hundreds of millions on improbable schemes to deport a small number of asylum seekers to Rwanda and billions on the hiring of unseaworthy hulks to detain asylum seekers in, and bloviating about leaving the European Convention on Human Rights with all the massive damage that would entail, but the obvious course of examining and rejecting ill-founded asylum applications seems not to have occurred to them — processing is getting slower and slower and backlogs of unexamined applications are getting larger and larger. They seem obsessed with pouring time and money into "solutions" that clearly can't work, while ignoring ones that can. Why do you think this is?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120964177#Comment_120964177

Do you believe there is a sudden mass persecution of tens of thousands of Albanians over the past 2 years or not?

I'm clear; I do not believe it for a second.

And from this graph, we can see it has nothing to do with securing safety. They are choosing the UK for a reason, and that reason is very, very obvious to most people.

joey100

Well the UK home office has approved 48% of Albanian applications in 2021 and 2022 so they would probably say there is reason to approve these. They don't release information for the reasons for approval or denial. Figures for 2023 are not yet available.

You keep mentioning tens of thousands of Albanians too, There has been approx 20,000 applications over the last 3 years. They make up less than 10% of the boats crossing too. Apart from a jump in 3rd Quarter of 2022 the numbers have actually been pretty low, that quarter skews the figure. It has since gone back to pre that quarter level too.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120964233#Comment_120964233

They're lying to secure asylum, and being granted on that basis. The current system in place is the problem.

As Suella Braverman confirmed:

She said Albania was a safe country, adding: “Many of them claim to be trafficked as modern slaves … the truth is that many of them are not modern slaves and their claims of being trafficked are lies.”

The system is wrong, and it must be fixed to ensure that someone's word is not treated as fact.

joey100

I would guess that the ones who are being accused of lying are part of the 52% who's applications are being refused? Unless Suella Braverman knows the details of all the applications and knows that one's that are being approved, by her own Department, are lying in their application?

Also only 12% of those who arrived where referred to the National Referral Mechanism to identify if they were victims of modern slavery. So while some claim to be, it's far from the majority. And 55% of applications processed in 2022, where the application has been fully processed, where found to be victims of modern slavery. So the claim that it is lies doesn't really add up.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120964197#Comment_120964197

If the reason is obvious to you, why not say out loud what it is?

And, while doing that, also say out loud why that reason wasn't operative two or three years ago. What it is that has changed?

And, perhaps, also answer the question already put. If the facts are as you say, most of the applications from Albanian applicants will fail. So the easiest and cheapest way to respond to the situation is the prioritise assessing the applications. Why do you think the UK government is taking the opposite course? Do you agree that they are wrong to take the opposite course?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120964285#Comment_120964285

No, I think you're grossly underestimating the prevalence of deception when it comes to migration:

There is no definitive figure on the number of undocumented people in the UK. Recent estimates suggest it is between 800,000 and 1.2 million people, a larger proportion of the population than in comparable countries such as France, Spain, Switzerland and Portugal, where there are more routes to regularisation. The most significant region of origin for the UK’s undocumented population is Asia (52%) followed by Sub-Saharan Africa (20%), the Americas and non-EU Europe (16%) and the Middle East / North Africa (11%).  

What you are describing is so at odds with the reality of the nature of migration in the real world.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120964319#Comment_120964319

I asked you a question. Instead of answering it, you reply with a post that asks me four questions.

If you want to answer mine, then perhaps I'll answer yours. But we can't have a situation where you get to ask all the questions whilst simultaneously ignoring mine.

Nermal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120964084#Comment_120964084

Simply repeating the current laws ad nauseam or quibbling with nomenclature is rather pointless.

The obligation currently placed on developed countries is untenable; that's why this discussion exists.

You're defending the idea that any one of the eight billion of us may select a desireable first-world country, travel there, and at that the expense of that country initiate a costly and lengthy legal process to decide whether we can stay.

It's transparently ludicrous.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120964345#Comment_120964345

Well, I have to point out that you ignored my question first. The post in which you ask whether I believe there is a mass persecution of tens of thousands of Albanians over the past 2 years quotes my post, with a question in it, addressed to you, that you ignore.

Still, I'll go first, if it will make you happy. I don't know whether there has been a mass persecution in Albania over the past two years. The purpose of the application assessment process is to establish facts like that, so this tends to reinforce my view what the process should proceed, and indeed should be accelerated.

Now, your turn.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120964347#Comment_120964347

I haven't said anything of the kind. But carry on making stuff up in your head in order to refute it; it's so much easier than actually engaging with the reality.

joey100

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120964328#Comment_120964328

Why are you moving the goalposts? You were specifically talking about Albanian migration into the UK, you kept mentioning the figure of tens of thousands, and within that specifically talking about false claims of modern slavery and how you consider Albania to be a safe country. You then gave a quote from Suella Braverman again specifically referencing Albanians, now you have started talking about total number of undocumented people in the UK?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120964419#Comment_120964419

You are assuming that all is above board with migration into the UK.

I'm highlighting the obvious reality that migration is very much tied to lies and deception, hence the estimated 1.2 million undocumented persons in the UK.

That deception doesn't suddenly become transparency once you cross the English Channel.

Nermal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120964319#Comment_120964319

In the long run, the 'easiest and cheapest' way to respond to the situation is to face down the institutional resistance to changing the legal framework.

joey100

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120964435#Comment_120964435

Again avoiding. You brought up Albanians specifically not me. You brought up the figures of tens of thousands, not me. You brought up the quote from Suella about false claims, not me.

You seemed very interested in discussing Albanians earlier, that's the info I was replying to.

I used the same site for my figures as you did for yours. You were happy to accept it's data to back up your own claims. When I use it suddenly the conversation moves to all undocumented people within the UK, not the tens of thousands of Albanians you previously referenced.

You do this on every single thread your on. Make false claims, never back them up, when challenged on them either move onto something else or disappear for a few days.

How is that spectator article you promised was coming that would back up your thoughts on Marcus Rashford anyway?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120964461#Comment_120964461

The Tories have been in power for the past 13 years, and hyperventilating about asylum seekers for most of that. If it were as easy as all that to fix the problem in the way you say, don't you think they'd have done it by now?

The legal framework is established by international treaties to which the UK is a party; it cannot change them unilaterally. If it wants them changed, it needs to build a case for that which will secure the support of other countries. And a case based on "the present system isn't working!" is a pretty weak case if, in fact, your own policy is to refuse to operate the present system. How can you say it won't work if you won't try to work it?

So we come back to the question I have put twice before, that everyone seems keen to avoid answering. If the facts are as Rapidash says they are, the asaylum applications from Albanians will largely be unsuccessful. So why not prioritise proceeding to a decision, so that they can be seen to fail, protection can be denied, and action can be taken on foot of that?

greencap

Is it not the case that any given country ultimately has limited resources to dedicate to asylum, and that as a result only a certain number of people can be helped. Due to there not being a bottomless money/resources pit.

So for example the govt of a country might set out a budget with x million for roads. X million for education. X million for asylum and immigration related situations. And thats the limit, and the optimal plan. The best for all concerned.

If this is the case, and I think it may be, then the implication must be that when someone illegally enters a country they are given resources previously assigned for other asylum seekers who are using the correct legal means.

So an illegal migrant takes the place of the legal migrant.

What good is that, and why would anyone encourage or tolerate this.