Should asylum seekers be allowed to work while their claim is processed

[JP_]

Even the Mail agrees that we need 2.7 million more workers to save the economy
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...s-job-vacancies-hit-time-high-2-7million.html

 

[fillyboy]

Even the Mail agrees that we need 2.7 million more workers to save the economy
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...s-job-vacancies-hit-time-high-2-7million.html

It doesn't however say that we need 2.7 million more asylum seekers. The largest influx of asylum seekers in Europe would be Germany, how come they still have a shortage of workers.

I'm not sure why you insist on conflating 'asylum seekers' with 'workers'.

 

[JP_]

I'm not sure why you insist on conflating 'asylum seekers' with 'workers

Read the title of the thread. This is what the discussion is about.

 

[JP_]

It doesn't however say that we need 2.7 million more asylum seekers

No, it doesn't. But seeing that only about 5000 people were granted asylum in 2020, it's hard to work out what the problem is.

We need workers. Let people who want to work, work.

 

[Justin Passing]

The problem, is setting the precedent - and allowing unsatisfactory procedures to continue.
Coming the way they are is not OK.
What everyone's doing now is not ok.

So no working. Build detention centres until they can be assessed.
Side-effect is of course that the longer that lasts, the more will be discouraged from the current practice.

Sure, there are lots of other problems which also need addressing and changing (short of tear gas (Poland) and turning back dangerous boats to sink (Oz)).
It seems heads are in the sand at the moment.

No good answers. Get on with what you said, Patel.

 

[Notch7]

The problem, is setting the precedent - and allowing unsatisfactory procedures to continue.
Coming the way they are is not OK.
What everyone's doing now is not ok.

So no working. Build detention centres until they can be assessed.
Side-effect is of course that the longer that lasts, the more will be discouraged from the current practice.

Sure, there are lots of other problems which also need addressing and changing (short of tear gas (Poland) and turning back dangerous boats to sink (Oz)).
It seems heads are in the sand at the moment.

No good answers. Get on with what you said, Patel.

ah yes, you certainly have the head in sand approach.

it’s the usual argument “stop them coming here illegally” “only allow those who come here legally” ….great idea except UK rules don’t allow for any legal routes and a person arriving here by any means has the right to claim asylum.

By the way, Priti Patels plans have already been rejected by the border force…..changing domestic law enabling border force agents to break international law, not surprisingly, has little appeal to them.

 

[AngleEyes]

Bribed to turn a blind eye

no we would not

LOL. Yeah, of course we'd stop migrants leaving - we'd beg them to stay!

Those consumed by hatred and rage against foreigners do not understand obvious logic, JP_
You need to remember that transam has been radicalised by his Nazi Austrian relatives, especially the panzer tank driving relatives, and the ones that worked in the concentration camps, of which, I have seen reported that he was especially fond of.
Transam wants to use violence at any and every remote opportunity. He appears to have a particular dislike for French people, and will ferment rumours about them especially, but also about any group that disagrees with his raging hatred philosophy. One can only speculate where that raging hatred emanates from.

 

[JP_]

“stop them coming here illegally”

and as discussed only the other week, there is not really such a thing as "illegal immigration" only "irregular immigration".
There is nothing illegal about travelling to a country and seeking asylum.

 

[AngleEyes]

Who have crossed several perfectly safe countries and paid criminals to provide a boat, so they can get to here. It simply does not hang together. If you are dodging all those things, you stop dodging as soon as you find somewhere safe, the first safe country you come to - you don't cross several countries and pay criminals to get you across dangerous channel crossing, risking your life.

If they weren't desperate why do you think they would risk their lives, not to mention paying large sums of money to do so? Your logic is not faulty, it's totally absent.
There is no requirement for asylum seekers to seek asylum in the first country of arrival, and they must ne in UK to claim sylum.

The people who cross the Channel come to the UK from the poorest and most vulnerable parts of the world - including Yemen, Eritrea, Chad, Egypt, Sudan and Iraq.
Under international law, people have the right to seek asylum in whichever country they arrive, and there is nothing to say they must seek asylum in the first safe country. It is very hard to apply to the UK for asylum unless you are already in the country.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59382187​

Additionally there are a myriad of reasons why some prefer to come to the UK, but the vast majority don't. UK take a tiny fraction of asylum seekers compared to other countries. It's only the inhospitable and selfish nature of right-wing, resource-grabbing people that want to refuse to share their advantaged position, and exaggerate the numbers of refugees arriving in UK, and to minimise their plight before arrival.

Refugee facts
As part of our mission we want to raise awareness and tell the truth about some of the world’s most vulnerable people.
https://separatedchild.org/our-work...iMyoCdmFyMUUomH0BDfCf0LAL9bYiyThoCAV0QAvD_BwE


86%
Developing countries – not the UK – look after most of the world's refugees
1%
The UK is home to approx. 1% of the 26.4 million refugees, forcibly displaced across the world.
https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/i...VdimjLtDilTnkTXOXeJ5wEy5xrQtA0cRoC5l0QAvD_BwE
​

And this is out-of-date, since Brexit.

There is nothing in international law to say that refugees must claim asylum in the first country they reach. A European regulation allows a country such as the UK to return an adult asylum seeker to the first European country they reached. This means that countries on the edge of Europe have responsibility for a lot more asylum seekers than others. Some of the countries through which people travel to get to Europe are unsafe for some. Many have not signed the Refugee Convention, meaning that people who remain there will not get international protection and be able to rebuild their lives
https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/i...VdimjLtDilTnkTXOXeJ5wEy5xrQtA0cRoC5l0QAvD_BwE
​

And the UK may not always be a safe place:

• Asylum seeking women who are destitute are vulnerable to violence in the UK. More than a fifth of the women accessing our therapeutic services had experienced sexual violence in this country

https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/i...VdimjLtDilTnkTXOXeJ5wEy5xrQtA0cRoC5l0QAvD_BwE​

 

[AngleEyes]

You see at the end of the day the only point or argument as I see it is how
Many you let in

there has to be a limit

If the resources are finite, then a limit can be a sensible solution, e.g why overcrowd a boat and risk everyone's lives?
But UK is a country, it is not likely to sink. Yes possibly everyone may have to endure a little more hardship to accommodate everyone in dire need, to be a little more accommodating, to show more tolerance.
But I'd do that willingly to save many lives.
Wouldn't you?
Evidently many on here would refuse to give up a fraction of their comfortable lifestyle, to forgo a little comfort to help out those in dire need of some assistance.
Instead they create an inhospitable environment, spread false rumours and generally demonstrate hatred and contempt for people seeking safety.
Weirdly, those same people would claim to be warriors of social justice. They're not, they're selfish, resource-grabbing, right-wing xenophobes, and racists and spread lies to promote their argument.

 

[AngleEyes]

That has to be one of the best totally made up wacky statements we've had so far. Well done.

Andy11 is a committed racist. All of his comments are totally made up and whacky, but still dangerous in promoting his racist agenda.

 

[AngleEyes]

The problem, is setting the precedent - and allowing unsatisfactory procedures to continue.

I'd think that all improvements set a precedence, somewhere.
And if fear of setting a precedence means perpetuating an unsatisfactory system, then common sense has taken flight.

 

[AngleEyes]

and as discussed only the other week, there is not really such a thing as "illegal immigration" only "irregular immigration".
There is nothing illegal about travelling to a country and seeking asylum.

I know what you're meaning, JP_, but there is illegal immigration.
However there is no illegal asylum seeking. It is not illegal, and everyone has a right to arrive in another country and claim asylum, for whatever reason, and irrespective of how you arrived.
There is some illegal immigration.
As Notch7 says, visa overstayers are illegal, but there's a small fraction of them, and they are probably mostly students, well integrated into society, having been educated in UK. Although many cannot wait to return home to put their newly acquired knowledge, wisdom and awareness to promote improvement in their home country.
But illegal immigration is the small number of immigrants who sneak, or are smuggled into the country, perhaps in the back of lorries, etc. and make every attempt to evade detection. Again, that will be a very small number of people, but of course the very nature of their arrival and avoiding detection, means no-one can put a number to it.
There also may be failed asylum seekers who abscond detention. Perhaps the numbers exist in government websites.
There are also the failed asylum seekers, who are released from detention, but no offer of repatriation is offered. So they have no alternative to remain in UK, even though they are failed asylum seekers. So officially they would be classed as illegal immigrants.
Then there are the Windrush generation, who strictly speaking might be classed as illegal immigrants, but to repatriate them is inhumane.

 

[Justin Passing]

ah yes, you certainly have the head in sand approach.

No, that's what we have now. I'm saying it needs changing. You didn't read that bit in the same post??

it’s the usual argument “stop them coming here illegally” “only allow those who come here legally” ….great idea except UK rules don’t allow for any legal routes and a person arriving here by any means has the right to claim asylum.

That needs changing. Change the f*%~ing routes and our rules.
We don't have to let them cross the border from France. Yes it's hard, but enough repulsed would deter more.

By the way, Priti Patels plans have already been rejected by the border force…..changing domestic law enabling border force agents to break international law, not surprisingly, has little appeal to them.

Poland seems to manage, with EU support. Australia manages.
If you want to enter legally you do it through customs.
If you arrive illegally you go into a detention center to be processed.

 

[Justin Passing]

But illegal immigration is the small number of immigrants who sneak, or are smuggled into the country, perhaps in the back of lorries, etc. and make every attempt to evade detection.

Or in boats.

Countless people would like to move to their choice of rich country to have money spent on them so they can integrate into it, but they don't have that right.
Once they're out of an unsafe couuntry, why should they have that right?