Forum Topic

No Evidence

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/home-office-admits-no-evidence-113925739.htmlJust intended to cause division...

Philippa Bond ● 1260d21 Comments

Que?

Claire Moran ● 1260d

You’re right, Philippa Patel and Braverman have made statements that people risking their lives crossing the Channel in dinghies are mostly economic migrants. The Home Office has now admitted, following an FOI request, that there is no evidence to support these statements whatsoever.

Stewart Jones ● 1260d

Totally agree, appalling that they make statements with no evidence to back them up.  Is this not a case of misleading not just the public, but parliament too?  But is there evidence to prove that they are not economic migrants?

Claire Moran ● 1260d

They could well have said ‘many’ are economic migrants, which might be true, but nonetheless intentionally misleading.  But then a significant part of the great British public is only too ready to be misled.

Peter Evans ● 1260d

There appears to be evidence that 60%+ would be granted asylum as refugees. 4 out of 10 people coming by small boats were from 5 coin – Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Eritrea and Sudan and three of these countries had a 98% acceptance rate of refugee status, and the other 2 were 80%+.

Andrew Jones ● 1260d

It's interesting to explore acceptance rates of people from various countries including those listed above. It is generally far, far lower in the rest of Europe than acceptance rates in the UK. So possibly the people who turn up on our shores have been rejected from other 'safe' European countries as not being genuine migrants, so are trying their luck here, and/ or we are incompetent at distiguishing.  Articles about the poor quality of, and high pressure on, those employed by our immigration system having to make these decisions indicate, along with the incredible delays on deciding about these people, due, presumably to a chronic shortage of staff,  that the UK immigration system is a complete and utter mess and totally unfit for purpose. And is charging us taxpayers millions per day to pay for their incompetence.

Claire Moran ● 1260d

What do you mean by a "genuine migrant" Claire Moran? Do you mean a "genuine refugee"? There is no requirement under international law for those seeking refugee status to apply for this in the first safe country they reach. Indeed, it makes much more sense for those seeking refugee status to do so in a country where they have some knowledge of the language and where they have friends and/or relations. As it does for the host nation. So you make your application where you think you have a better chance of integration and making a new life for yourself. The current British government ministers are deliberately obfuscating the situation, partly through their use of the term "illegal immigrant". They have closed every possibility for the vast majority of those seeking refuge here to do so: visas are extremely hard to come by, in many cases a passport even harder. And until you have reached this country you cannot apply for refugee status. Pretending that those seeking refuge in the UK are all essentially economic immigrants is not just misleading. It is untrue and it is playing to the most base of voter instincts.

Sue Rowe ● 1259d

Oh look......a squirrel!!!or maybe a dead cat?

Martin Weaver ● 1259d

Sue: These genuine asylum seekers are not fleeing from a place where their safety is materially at risk, they are fleeing from France which is a safe country and, thanks to Brexit, likely over the next few years to be significantly richer than the UK (also France already accepts a lot more refugees than the UK). In most cases (but not all) they have made a choice not to claim asylum in other safe countriesThat choice offends a sense of fairness - although I do agree that the UK needs to reconsider their actions in closing off legal routes to claim asylum prior to escaping their home country. What the international law on asylum has created is an economic incentive for people smuggling from France to the UK which is almost impossible to stop.So what has actually happened is the asylum process has become a cash generating machine for organised criminal gangs.There has to be a better way than the current system that does not become a money making machine for criminals, but equally we do need to recognise that the UK, like every EU country, cannot accept millions of asylum seekers which means that some hard choices need to be debated

Justin Stephenson ● 1259d

"5. Emigration out of the UK. The provisional estimate of the number of people emigrating out of the UK long-term in the year ending (YE) June 2022 was approximately 560,000. Non-EU nationals accounted for 195,000 of this long-term total, EU nationals accounted for 275,000 and British nationals 90,000.24 Nov 2022" Don't ask me where.It isn't a one way street.

Philippa Bond ● 1259d

Forgive me, Justin, but your language is only marginally less unacceptable than Braverman's. She talks of "invasion", you talk of "millions" of asylum seekers. You say the asylum seekers' choice of the UK offends a sense of fairness. But is it fair that we take far fewer asylum seekers than most other European countries?Like Braverman, you exaggerate the scale of the problem, to justify tough measures. The problem is not the sheer numbers of people wanting to come here. It's a combination of the lack of legal routes for coming here and the insufficient number of people to process asylum applications. This concept of a little crowded island with insufficient capacity to absorb these people is pure xenophobia. And why for goodness sake don't we let asylum applicants work? It would help to resolve the post-Brexit labour problem.

Robert Fish ● 1259d

In December 2022, the five EU Member States which received the highest number of first-time asylum applicants were Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Austria altogether accounting for 77 % of all first-time applicants in the EU. They also accept more first time applicants than this country and often accept ones the UK have thrown out.  As our economy tanks the number of people being accepted here will need to increase in order to keep the UK viable.  This is because our children will go elswhere for work and other Europeans, Australians, North and South Americans will also go elsewhere.  Just like when everyone left afte 2016 who were told we did not want them nor need them.  If I was in charge of this country right now I would make higher education free to all encourage mature students to retrain in nursing and healthcare.  Save and grow small businesses. tax all non domicile rich who have their businesses here.  And say " hello would you be prepared to re train or have you any of the skills on this list" to all those seeking asylum.  Allow them to start work asap pay tax and NI and find their own homes.  Otherwise we areTurkey in the 1970's.

Caroline Carney ● 1259d

The UK still contributes far more in foreign aid than most other countries: https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/uk-aid-spending-statistics-and-recent-developments/

Claire Moran ● 1259d

In 2020-21 the UK reduced its commitment to overseas aid by around 20% - £3billion. It’s about the percentage of a country’s GDP, innit,

Stewart Jones ● 1259d

Notwithstanding the overseas aid budget, there are two Home Secretaries who have made statements about asylum seekers based on no evidence at all. Why would the holders of one of the highest offices in the UK  do that?

Stewart Jones ● 1259d

And just to add, the UK is way down the list of preferred countries for asylum seekers. Yet, Patel, Braverman, Patel, racists, xenophobes and people on this forum continue to perpetuate the myth that the majority of displaced people only have the UK in their sights because we are a ‘soft touch’.

Stewart Jones ● 1259d

'And why for goodness sake don't we let asylum applicants work?' Yesterday's 'Observer' had an article about the number of people awaiting the Home office dealing with their asylum claims who are well qualified dentists, doctors, nurses and other medical professionals. Meanwhile the NHS is screaming out for staff and this stupid, incompetent shower apparently 'governing' the country let these poor people languish in hotels all over the place. The Doctors' Association UK called on the government to allow qualified asylum seekers to work and called on ministers to act urgently to resolve the 'ridiculous situation'. 'One doctor arrived here in 2016 from Pakistan after being threatened with death by family, she is still an asylum seeker and her appeal has been refused multiple times: (she is now trying to get a judicial review) A qualified doctor, she has a master's degree in public health and has passed her GMC  professional and linguistics exams, and is still not allowed to work in Britain.' Many of these individuals are suffering form anxiety and other mental health conditions, is it any wonder? Please someone explain this to me - and to any overworked, underpaid staff in the NHS, or to any poor sod waiting and waiting for treatment.

Vanessa Smith ● 1258d

https://theconversation.com/its-like-youre-a-criminal-but-i-am-not-a-criminal-first-hand-accounts-of-the-trauma-of-being-stuck-in-the-uk-asylum-system-202276?14 years waiting for an answer. So few are being processed.

Philippa Bond ● 1257d

Politics these days is about 'narratives' and not in any way about the truth. George Orwelll had it right in 1984 - "IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH" ... to which I could add "LIES ARE TRUTH"!!

Davey Harris ● 1253d

If they are refugees why do they cross several safe countries on their journey to the UK?  They appear to be making the UK their intended destination.

V Killick ● 1252d

It’s a very simple answer but you won’t like it.International law is clear that it is the refugee who decides which is a safe country for them. Not me, you, Braverman or the Daily Mail.The UK is the 17th preferred country for refugees which is pretty low down. France and Germany accept far more refugees than the UK.

Stewart Jones ● 1252d