Thank you for confirming Labour effectively has no immigration policy (Stainsey please note). You're right, they can be entirely negative for now, trying to vote down all governmental initiatives, but presumably will be unsuccessful given the Govt's majority. When a GE is announced, they will have to persuade the electorate they can do better than the government. A low bar, I know, but still, that will be the test. I find the Economist's article unpersuasive in two aspects: 1. It states that while in the EU we could send back asylum seekers that had registered in another member state - but I doubt this would include a lot of illegal migrants including Albanians, who only have the UK in their sights 2. It dismisses out of hand the prospect of a digital national identity for UK citizens. That's not well thought out in my view. It's something I'd love to see happen, and it could also avoid scamming and other fraud, because each individual will have a digital fingerprint to prove true identity.
So do you agree the mere fact of violence and gang warfare in a country should infer on someone the right of asylum in another country ? Personally I don’t
I guess on point 1 we'd need data on how many asylum seekers did or do register elsewhere to see the impact. Not sure if that exists but can Google later. Point 2 - how does that help with asylum seekers or illegal immigrants? If 1,000 people turn up on a boat, we might be able to stop them working more easily when they're here if they don't have a biometric ID card, but how does it help us work out who is a genuine asylum seeker and how and where we send people who are not? Genuine question as I think I'm missing something.
Again many a youth here has had a threat to their life from gangs that blight our society….should, in your opinion, they be granted the right of asylum in the US ?
The point is the one that France and other EU countries have complained about - that the UK's black economy is a huge draw for economic migrants. Most European countries have identity cards. We've avoided them on the grounds that sensibilities would be bruised if the police come around asking for identity papers. That doesn't seem to be so much a problem on the Continent. But my understanding is that a digital identity means that everything is in one place, including perhaps passport. Anyone that cannot produce this, cannot work or make any claim on the welfare state. And, also The Times says, it would be difficult to fraudulently replicate. I'm sympathetic to European states that complain we don't have this in place.
You said if you were advising Labour, you'd be telling them not to put out a position yet. Why would you say that if they already had a position (which they haven't apart from the overseas vetting stuff that's no policy at all)?
What's wrong with this. Its exactly perfect. There will be no excuses for anyone having to smuggle in.
1. Small boats are a problem for UK....mainly because they are visible. The rest of Europe have borders that go through woods and mountains and meadows. Who knows how many are crossing there. Probably thousands a day... they only become "visible"...when they cross open sea in a small boat. 2. We have no plans to " send them back"... to Ethiopia, or Sudan or Iraq or Albania...or where they came from. Our plan is to send them to a 3rd country, who has no reason to keep them...and so they will wander back at their own time to where they want to go to. If we sent them back that would be a start...for those not claiming political asylum obviously
Goldie seems to flit from…they have an open door policy, to they have no policy, to they have a policy but I don’t believe it….. His ramblings today are pretty bizarre to say the least
Got you - so in short it makes the UK a less attractive place to come to as there will be fewer work opportunities.
