France wants migrants to be able to claim UK asylum from within EU
No, no, I know, you don’t *have* to apply for asylum in the first safe place. That’s not the rule. The rule is that the first safe place *has* to grant asylum. Everyone else can do what they wish, grant or not as they wish.
So, given that folk here will be, by definition, in a safe place inside the EU why would we grant asylum?
We should welcome this with open arms and take the opportunity to reject every application without consideration, because the assylee (or however Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spells it) has already reached the safety of a European country.
So we just get to select the ones we want and reject the rest as they’re in a safe country already. Result.
They apply, we reject them, they come on a small boat anyway, and disappear into the informal economy. Even if they’re caught, we don’t bother deporting them.
This wouldn’t change a jot.
Why on Earth would we want any of these border criminals? They’ve already broken through the borders of numerous countries to get to Europe.
JG They’re not saying they should be able to apply for asylum, they’re saying they should be able to *claim* asylum.
So jgh.
Since the UK is rightfully and properly part of the EU, it should take all the illegals that the EU wants to dump on it.
But since it’s NOT part of the EU, it has no right to refuse them.
Indeed I suspect that it should also pay the EU absolutely unlimited compensation for not having forced them all to come direct to the UK.
Is that the way you see it??
But asylum seekers and other immigrants are a blessing, an enrichment, a huge economic benefit, we are assured. So why would the EU not want them all? Or is this just yet another example of the benevolent generosity of the EU, allowing us to share its newly acquired riches despite Brexit?
This from the Guardian quoting the Mirror:
“Last November, French police quoted a price of about £5,000 charged by smugglers for an individual to cross the Channel, according to reports in the Mirror. Now asylum seekers and non-governmental organisations are saying that prices have dropped to between £500 and £1,000 for a place in a boat.”
I get the distinct impression that the concern here is that high prices for a place on a boat are exploitative capitalism at its worst, and that low prices mean breach of elfin safety, which is of course terrible.
But if you can buy a cheap flight from an African country to London – which you certainly can – why would you bother with a long walk, squalor, and risking death in the Channel? A “refugee” used to mean some wealthy African politician or banker who got himself and his family on a B.O.A.C flight to avoid being arrested and murdered. He probably had a tube full of diamonds up his arse, and skills that the UK found useful. Now prices have dropped so much that anyone can fly, if they can buy passage on a boat. So what’s going on? X has plenty of posts about government involvement, hundreds of African blokes all wearing standard-issue lifejackets, etc.
@Simon Neale
So what’s going on? X has plenty of posts about government involvement, hundreds of African blokes all wearing standard-issue lifejackets, etc.
The great replacement, obviously. It’s intentional, and it isn’t stopping no matter what we think about it, nor how we vote, not whatever bullshit politicians and the media feed us.
https://substack.com/@fackel/p-148437729
Your conspiracy theory about the “great replacement” is contradicted by the link you quoted, Interested. The conclusion at the end is immigration will cause the end of the “welfare state” & civil war. You believe this is the intention?
What you’re actually looking at is the inconsistency & contradiction in much of liberal philosophy. Like it’s impossible to have both the generosity of unlimited immigration along with the generosity of a universal welfare state. The two are incompatible. But that’s the essential problem with liberalism. It’s not a rational philosophy. Each strand of it fulfils a particular aspiration. But all the strands can’t be fulfilled together. So it hardly has the coherence of a conspiracy, does it?
I’d say this goes right back to C18th liberalism & the concept of individual rights. Because one person’s rights will always conflict with another person’s rights. Because the other face of rights is obligations.
Rwanda and Nauru have made money out of asylum seekers recently – I wonder if the UK could do a deal with the EU to take their asylum seekers for a good price. The EU would pay say £350 million a year.
On arrival at Barra, UK airport they are processed as follows:
1. Are you a criminal, or intent on being, carrying a communicable disease . Go home on next flight
2. Here’s your NI number and a visa stamped NRTPF . Leave the base.
Sounds to me like the French want to dump as many of their migrants on us as possible.
bloke in spain:
Yes, makes sense, and is a point made by Isaiah Berlin: values are incompatible and often incommensurable. Idealistic midwits have faith that there is some “end point” of perfect balance when everyone is happy with the amount of freedom, safety, welfare, money, etc. that everyone has. I think Starmer might have a little touch of this delusion….
@BIS
Your conspiracy theory about the “great replacement” is blah blah blah all the strands can’t be fulfilled together. So it hardly has the coherence of a conspiracy, does it?
All I said is that we’re being replaced, it’s intentional, and it’s not stopping. I base that on the evidence of my own eyes and the expressed intentions of our rulers. That document is only one of many.
When Blair got in he opened the floodgates.
His adviser Andrew Neather later said that this was decided in closed meetings, and that a secret government report called for mass immigration to change Britain’s cultural make-up and that ‘mass immigration was the way that the government was going to make the UK truly multicultural… the policy was intended, even if this wasn’t its main purpose, to rub the right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.’
Was that a conspiracy? I dunno. Probably depends on how you would define one. I’d say meetings held by powerful people behind closed doors to draw up a plan to do something they said they wouldn’t do to a country that doesn’t want it might meet the definition, but I’m just a bloke out in the sticks.
I’m sure a sophisticate such as yourself would take a different view.
Of course, Neather later said he’d been misinterpreted, and that ‘the main goal was to allow in more migrant workers’ to deal with our ‘skills shortages. Somehow this has become distorted by excitable Right-wing newspaper columnists into being a plot to make Britain multicultural. There was no plot.’
That certainly explains the thousands of doctors and engineers still arriving each month, to do all the work that AI, robotics and our ‘knowledge’ economy is going to require.
Hang on, is that right?
You are Andrew Neather, and I claim my £5.
We have only 650 MPs.
But tens of thousands of lampposts.
“2. Here’s your NI number and a visa stamped NRTPF . Leave the base.”
Whereupon said person promptly applies for loads of welfare benefits and gets given them by the civil servants who don’t bother asking if anyone is entitled to them, and gets treated at his local hospital because ditto etc etc etc. A system that discriminates between various people’s entitlements to public funds and services requires a State apparatus that is prepared to do the discriminating, which we know ours won’t.
I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the only way to fix the problem of the State Blob is to pass an Equality of Ideology Act, which will require all bodies who are in receipt of public funds (so including charities) to determine the political alignment of their employees, and do everything possible to ensure the relative proportions match the country as a whole. After all if its only fair that ethnic minorities get nurses who look like them, I think its fair the conservative get social workers who agree with them ideologically as well. It might not achieve much, but it would f*ck the Civil Service right up. They’d be forced to stop employing new Lefties, and go out trawling the back streets for right wingers to attempt to fulfill their quotas.
Well euroskeptics.
Obviously the migrants habe read the Reform Party manifesto and want to escape the EUSSR tyranny of health and safety regulations and controls over toothpaste Ingredients.
How dare anyone refuse asylum seekers from wanting to free the undemocratic slaves of EU control.
They obviously want to enter a free and sovereign UK. Thqnk God for Brexit..
@Simon Neale – “if you can buy a cheap flight from an African country to London – which you certainly can – why would you bother with a long walk, squalor, and risking death in the Channel?”
Because buying that flight would be useless since you would be denied boarding if you didn’t have a suitable visa, and visas are not issued to people seeking asylum.