27 people confirmed to have died after boat sinks in the channel

[Spiderman]

Originally Posted by cockneyrebel

The U.K. takes a shameful amount of asylum seekers, the vast majority of refugees are in poorer countries. The idea that the U.K. is an “easy ride” is also nonsense with pitiful benefits, the denial of the right to work while you await the outcome, grim accommodation and then a citizenship test. And what a terrible thing it would be if we did give asylum seekers an “easy ride”.

Also what is “legitimate” depends on your morality I guess. Escaping economic impoverishment for a better life is legitimate in my view.

Germany took a million Syrian refugees and the U.K. government and some of the population make a big deal out of tens of thousands crossing the channel.

Once asylum seekers get here we then have the horrendous system of putting them in prison. It’s beyond belief and was set up by labour. Starmer is now silent on that issue and the tories welcome it. People who have been tortured in some cases put in prisons where there have been sexual assaults, rape and suicide. I remember going to a demonstration outside one with women and children inside holding up written signs saying help at the windows.

We live in a world with disgusting inequality, and this is the result, where desperate people will take any measures possible to try for a better life.

As a matter of interest, what prisons are they put in?

[0.bj]

Originally Posted by Spiderman

As a matter of interest, what prisons are they put in?

To view the link you have to Register or Login

[smileysmith]

Originally Posted by Worksop Palace

You write that like it’s supposed to upset me or something.

It really should.

[Worksop Palace]

Originally Posted by smileysmith

It really should.

Well rest assured, it really doesn’t.

Grow up.

[CP-RJW]

Originally Posted by Wolfnipplechips

It shouldn’t be political. It should simply be about humanity.

I deliberately started the thread outside the politics forum. This is a matter for us all whatever our political beliefs. Humanity and human lives are at stake.

It was a nice thought.

[smileysmith]

Originally Posted by Worksop Palace

it really doesn’t.

Well, of course not. You couldn't vote that way if you had any empathy.

[dogstar721]

Originally Posted by Fen Eagle

The argument that they can do the jobs lazy white Anglo Saxons won’t do is bollocks. Just because your a potato picker doesn’t mean you want your children to be. Every child entering or born here is direct competition for your children and grandchildren. For every one of them that pay fairly there taxes and National insurance will that cover there mother / mother in law’s doctor cost or hospital cost ? Will it pay for there children's state education ? Racist no not in anyway realist yes.

I'm ok with paying a bit more in tax, if necessary, rather than having people drown in the sea. We just had a significant spike in deaths, and currently seem to have essential shortages in all manner of employment areas. I'm even ok with them being offered work to citizenship programs, and I'm fairly sure they would be too.

Maybe, just maybe, we could aim at building a society in which we don't pit children and citizens against each other in completion for services.

[cockneyrebel]

Originally Posted by Ogilvy

I fully accept the below is a fairly uneducated POV on this:

I can’t help feeling anyone paying 1000s to get to Britain are doing a disservice to those really in need.
Those fleeing war and persecution are travelling miles across safe lands to get to a safe land why?

I absolutely think this country needs to step up and take its share of the real refugees, but for me, it’s the old thing about giving a homeless man a £10er or a shelter/charity the money to help solve the bigger problem and get to the absolute needy and the bigger answer. How even when we were in the EU is the pull of this country so much more than the countries they have travelled through. We should be negotiating with these countries around the safe passage and care of these, not feeding the gangsters greed

This just isn’t true. The amount of refugees trying to get to the U.K. is a tiny fraction of the overall amount. Some people might want to come here because of language (they speak English), community or family connections or, god forbid, they might think it’s the best place to go to.

[cockneyrebel]

I think part of the issue is the way people are dehumanised.

“Illegals”, “aliens”, etc

They are people like me and you. Imagine your pregnant sister, daughter, partner. So desperate for a better life they get on a dinghy to cross a rough sea in the dark.

How can the debate be about blame and legal technicalities when we are talking about such acute human suffering

[Hpalace]

Originally Posted by Ogilvy

I fully accept the below is a fairly uneducated POV on this:

I can’t help feeling anyone paying 1000s to get to Britain are doing a disservice to those really in need.
Those fleeing war and persecution are travelling miles across safe lands to get to a safe land why?

I absolutely think this country needs to step up and take its share of the real refugees, but for me, it’s the old thing about giving a homeless man a £10er or a shelter/charity the money to help solve the bigger problem and get to the absolute needy and the bigger answer. How even when we were in the EU is the pull of this country so much more than the countries they have travelled through. We should be negotiating with these countries around the safe passage and care of these, not feeding the gangsters greed

"In 2020, there were around 6 asylum applications for every 10,000 people living in the UK. Across the EU27 there were 11 asylum applications for every 10,000 people. When compared with EU countries, the UK ranked 14th out of the individual countries in terms of the number of asylum applications per capita."

This myth is British exceptionalism.

[Worksop Palace]

Originally Posted by smileysmith

Well, of course not. You couldn't vote that way if you had any empathy.

What nonsense is this ?

[PeterH]

Originally Posted by Spiderman

But should we not establish if they are genuine asylum seekers first? The whole situation seems to be out of control which is leading to unnecessary loss of life

Perhaps the first step is for the World, The UK, wherever, to not get hung up on whether someone (and their family) is a 'genuine asylum seeker' or simply an economic migrant.

The term seems to have been drafted to pander to xenophobes, create divisions, create draconion legislation, and set up migrant/concentrate camp conditions that seem to be self-prophecising many a dystopian movie or TV show. It's almost as though governments and certain citizens are wishing for it.

Is the next step gun boats blasting rafts in The Channel or The Med. We have already had images of cowboys hearding migrants back across the Rio Grande on horseback?

You even have c nuts like Putin and his sponsored Belorussian lacky purposefully creating problems in some silly political game with the EU too cowardly to act. I read that another entry point is between Bosnia and Croatia.

Decency and humanity seems to get lost at all levels here. Whether it be France and The UK sharing post Brexit barbs or c nuts on social media celebrating the deaths.

Saying all of that, I don't have any solutions. Other than making life better globally in the origin countries. But there is no global mandate for that as leaders continue to play their own game of Risk regardless of what damage it causes.

I would suspect that the vast number of those trying to get into the richer countries are affected directly or indirectly by the shitstorm the big countries have created and continue to create - mostly for their own selfish needs.

Sneering classifying a victim as an economic chancer rather than a 'genuine asylum seeker' doesn't change that. Maybe they are seeking asylum from an utterly fecked up existence of poverty. If the roles were reversed, wouldn't most of us be trying to do the same.

[Ogilvy]

Originally Posted by cockneyrebel

This just isn’t true. The amount of refugees trying to get to the U.K. is a tiny fraction of the overall amount. Some people might want to come here because of language (they speak English), community or family connections or, god forbid, they might think it’s the best place to go to.

I think you have totally missed my point which is:

Feeding the smugglers greed is not good for genuine refugees who can’t afford the price of an unsafe vessel. Taking our fair quota to help build a better world. It’s like a shit lottery at the moment, the more money you have the more chance of winning, how is that fair?

[Spiderman]

Originally Posted by 0.bj

To view the link you have to Register or Login

Sorry I thought you meant actual prisons. The vast majority asylum applicants in the removal centres will be those that have had their applications refused and gone through the whole appeal process and are waiting removal.

[Spiderman]

Originally Posted by PeterH

Perhaps the first step is for the World, The UK, wherever, to not get hung up on whether someone (and their family) is a 'genuine asylum seeker' or simply an economic migrant.

The term seems to have been drafted to pander to xenophobes, create divisions, create draconion legislation, and set up migrant/concentrate camp conditions that seem to be self-prophecising many a dystopian movie or TV show. It's almost as though governments and certain citizens are wishing for it.

Is the next step gun boats blasting rafts in The Channel or The Med. We have already had images of cowboys hearding migrants back across the Rio Grande on horseback?

You even have c nuts like Putin and his sponsored Belorussian lacky purposefully creating problems in some silly political game with the EU too cowardly to act. I read that another entry point is between Bosnia and Croatia.

Decency and humanity seems to get lost at all levels here. Whether it be France and The UK sharing post Brexit barbs or c nuts on social media celebrating the deaths.

Saying all of that, I don't have any solutions. Other than making life better globally in the origin countries. But there is no global mandate for that as leaders continue to play their own game of Risk regardless of what damage it causes.

I would suspect that the vast number of those trying to get into the richer countries are affected directly or indirectly by the shitstorm the big countries have created and continue to create - mostly for their own selfish needs.

Sneering classifying a victim as an economic chancer rather than a 'genuine asylum seeker' doesn't change that. Maybe they are seeking asylum from an utterly fecked up existence of poverty. If the roles were reversed, wouldn't most of us be trying to do the same.

You have hit the nail on the head as to the reasons people are willing to take the risk. Would I do the same in their circumstances? Absolutely although not sure I would be brave enough to enter a dinghy in the Channel.
Unfortunately, like you, I do not have any solutions and until the World powers that be, stop playing politics and start thinking about solutions, I am afraid nothing will change

[Kipungu]

Not everyone is just jumping on a dinghy, there are many being forced on at gunpoint.

[Kipungu]

Originally Posted by Spiderman

The problem with your first paragraph is, if, they are deemed not genuine, what happens to them. Also most, if not all, have no form of identification and it is therefore all but impossible to determine their true identity

A vast majority of asylum claimants actually have no problem with providing their real identities.

Destruction of the passport is more to do with obstructing a return to country of origin. It is also more likely that people come with false documentation, and then provide their real details once they feel safe.

Language analysis and various interviews can ascertain nationality quite easily, and many provide documents from their country deemed legitimate.

[Braders]

Originally Posted by smileysmith

Well, of course not. You couldn't vote that way if you had any empathy.

You have zero empathy. Proven it by using the death of 27 people to have a kick around politically. You are not morally superior, so don't pretend to be. You couldn't give a toss about those people who have died, just about scoring a point politically.

[0.bj]

Originally Posted by Spiderman

Sorry I thought you meant actual prisons. The vast majority asylum applicants in the removal centres will be those that have had their applications refused and gone through the whole appeal process and are waiting removal.

You’re in a facility you cannot use; your movements are regulated and your hours set to the authorities schedule. But it’s not a prison.

What do you think the rooms are like? Why do you think it is called a ‘detention centre’?

Your figures are bollox - 58% of those in detention centres in 2019 were awaiting a decision on their claim, so the “vast majority” are not awaiting removal.

Don’t deliberately muddy your point by conflating the equally squalid detention and removal centres. The words alone are dehumanising.

[strawberry mivi]

Originally Posted by Kipungu

Not everyone is just jumping on a dinghy, there are many being forced on at gunpoint.

What's the thinking behind that?