How do you know they are illegal? How many have been prosecuted? The right thing to do is process their asylum claim and if they are successful they can work and start contributing to the country. Of course this was never a problem before 2016...
Because legal ones would apply for asylum in the first SAFE country they enter. How do you "process" a claim by somebody who is undocumented having ditched them on their journy? If they are legal why do they not come in by ferry, it's much cheaper and safer than a seat in an overloaded rubber dinghy
There is so much wrong with your understanding of the subject that I don't quite know where to start, but breaking it down into 3 parts: 1. Asylum seekers are under no obligation to claim asylum in the first country they pass through. In fact, if that was the case the UK would likely take no refugees. As it is, the UK takes a fraction of the numbers that other European countries process. https://freemovement.org.uk/are-ref...-asylum-in-the-first-safe-country-they-reach/ 2. Most (not all, by any means) refugees taking these routes do not 'ditch' their ID docs. They will have fled from countries without documents, often having to escape that countries borders or risk persecution or death. They will be leaving war zones and unimaginable conditions. They often cannot try and seek documentation from their own Government and cannot seek asylum within 'safe' embassies or consoles. 3. Not understanding the difference between legal and illegal immigration is a pillar of the xRW trope. A migrant, whether travelling by small boat or ferry is not 'illegal' until they have been processed and deemed to be so. That is why the effort has to be focused on establishing processing centres within Europe. https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/the-truth-about-asylum/#:~:text=There is no such thing,authorities have assessed their claim. Those without documentation cannot get ferries as the operators are responsible for only carrying documented pax. That is the reason why this Government appears (hopefully) to be pursuing the policy of establishing processing centres in France and other European countries - creating the safe routes that 14 years of the previous Government deliberately avoided. Finally, it is only the xRW elements of politics and media that focus on the small boats issue as a 'crisis' Yes, the loss of life is a human tragedy and incorporates a disgusting criminality on the part of the traffickers, but the numbers are miniscule in comparison with the total immigration figures, at less than 5%. To enhance knowledge of the issue this would be a good starting point: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac....-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/
On the subject of migration, Paul Joseph ****stain got roasted so hard someone locked in a Brazen Bull felt sorry for him... please log in to view this image
If you fail as an asylum applicant or do not qualify why are you called illegal? That's without going into the fairness of the rules in the first place. Seems to me that there are next to no complaints in the media about "illegals" from Australia, New Zealand, American etc who over stay on their visa's or "illegally" work. Apply for something and being turned down is only called illegal in terms of migration. Would never be applied to those who apply for benefits, jobs, membership of clubs etc.
Reminds me of when that right wing prick actor (fox?) complained about Asian people being in a film about the first world war. He went on about wokism etc until it was pointed out he was completely wrong. You'd at least check your facts before mouthing off
If you have physically entered the UK in violation of UK law then you are an illegal ENTRANT. The reason you have attempted to enter is moot. "Seems to me that there are next to no complaints in the media about "illegals" from Australia, New Zealand, American etc who over stay on their visa's or "illegally" work." 1. You entered the UK LEGALLY. Therefore you are now a GUEST of the UK. Guests who become in violation of UK law (visa expiry, non work rights) are now illegal GUESTS. 2. Of the nations you mentioned, what would you say their : - PER CAPITA illegal ratios are (per 100 guests) - ratios rank on the UK histogram of nations (low/high percentile, average etc)
Our Criminal Law says you are innocent until proven guilty. How many of the claimed illegal entrants have been prosecuted?
Not being rude but you're asking me about something I've not said. I said nothing about people coming into the country illegally. I wrote about asylum seekers being classed as illegal. No idea about the numbers of overstayed.
Asylum seekers who are not illegal entrants should not be classified as "illegal" anything. The question is therefore : What % of illegal entrants (the dinghy drivers etc) are claiming political asylum ?? "No idea about the numbers of overstayed." So your mention of offenders from said countries was for what purpose ??
Pointing out that the politicians, the media and those complaining about immigration do not mention the number of overstayers from what are seen as predominantly white countries. We're too deep to understand tbh
You make the above aware by gathering the numbers, and make them PUBLIC. IF the number of "overstayers" is an issue, THEN deal with it (especially for those nations for which the per capita measures are significantly high) .
I offered an opinion in isolation about things I find interesting in the immigration debate. No idea what your issue is with what I wrote tbh
The toilet monitor doesn't realise that this headline says her rapey god lost an appeal and owes every cent of the $5m settlement please log in to view this image
