The UKAR politics thread

Chat about anything not specifically aviation related
Post Reply
FGR2
Posts: 2744
Joined: Mon 15 Sep 2008, 11:12 am

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by FGR2 »

Tommy wrote:
Sat 27 Nov 2021, 11:01 pm
FGR2 wrote:
Sat 27 Nov 2021, 8:35 pm

You have not shut down myths and falsities, I was providing an alternative view to your continual anti-government slant in every post no matter what the thread.
No, you posted things that were wrong. In response, I cited the Dublin Convention and this morning the actual process and regulations behind applications. This is not my view. This is simply the law/process.

It’s not a criticism of you personally - you just said things that were false, and that are common myths, I don’t blame you for believing them. But I’m not going to sugarcoat it for you. At the same time, I do not intend any offence nor personal attack, either.
Just my final point, I don’t want to labour this for post after post, as others have put forward the case further up the thread. I didn’t once refer to the Dublin Convention regarding returns, or how it relates to safe passage and rights for Asylum. This is a moot point as it no longer applies post BREXIT, so quoting text and legal paragraphs to back up the current situation with a defunct (from the UK’s perspective) agreement has no relevance now.

I was not disputing how the rules were previously applied under the said convention, but the broader question (in the eyes of many), how can someone travel through many safe countries and then expect “asylum” in the country of their choice?

We currently haven’t any mechanisms to control this, and this needs to be looked at, to stop economic migrants playing the system.

We shouldn’t be deemed racist, xenophobic or unwelcoming by questioning their intentions.

Iainpeden succinctly put it a few posts ago when he said “However, while the Dublin Convention does say about the first country somebody feels safe in, how could it be argued that anybody would feel unsafe in Germany, Italy, Spain, France or Benelux.”

I agree with him.

There is no doubt that a proportion are not genuinely fleeing war torn countries but are economic migrants seeking a better life in a country of their choice. It is the latter many people have a problem with, and who shouldn’t be accepted here, unless they have a very good reason or grounds for remaining.

It is imperative that we stop the crossings, as we currently have no idea of who is entering the country or their intentions.

Teaboy
Posts: 351
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 8:47 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Teaboy »

FGR2 wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 9:43 am
how can someone travel through many safe countries and then expect “asylum” in the country of their choice?
I sure hope you only holiday in countries immediately bordering your country of residence, only shop in the closest supermarket and only work at the closest available place of employment in relation to your home; regardless of what it is.

User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 2934
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 7:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by iainpeden »

Teaboy as one might expect I agree with FGR2s recent posts 100% and I don't get the logic of your post above.

The young lady who drowned the other day, alongside 26 other poor souls, left Istanbul with a visa for Italy on the 2nd of November - so entered legally and could have applied for asylum legitimately. She was then photographed in Germany on the 10th November, she was clean, smartly dressed, obviously relaxed and clearly had safe accommodation where she could stay and keep her belongings. On the assumption that her fiancé is in the UK legally a little patience and she probably could have got here safely at some time. I know that sounds horribly callous but isn't meant to be. On the same day R5 interviewed an Eritrean in one of the French camps - he was waiting to get on a boat - having already worked in Germany for four years.

On Tommy's idea of an organised ferry crossing, well what then? Long term detention centres like Yarlswood or the Dover centre with concrete floors and one toilet for 100 people?

It's also probably not helping that the CPS have ceased to prosecute people who enter illegally; I'm not advocating prison as the panacea but it should be a deterrent and a sign that this land of milk and honey isn't. And that's why Tommy's (accurate) data about the significant majority being given asylum says to me more that the authorities have lost control and are taking an easy option rather than actually investigating each case thoroughly.

It's all a horrible mess from incompetent, willy waving politicians on both sides of the channel who simply don't know what to do to out of control mafia gangs to people in less developed countries who are more and more exposed to the "comfy" Western life and want some of it to horribly naive people preyed on by those mafia gangs and who believe it's an easy way to a supposedly better life.
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

vandal
Posts: 1389
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 1:13 am

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by vandal »

iainpeden wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 11:00 am
The young lady who drowned the other day, alongside 26 other poor souls, left Istanbul with a visa for Italy on the 2nd of November - so entered legally and could have applied for asylum legitimately. She was then photographed in Germany on the 10th November, she was clean, smartly dressed, obviously relaxed and clearly had safe accommodation where she could stay and keep her belongings. On the assumption that her fiancé is in the UK legally a little patience and she probably could have got here safely at some time.
This is just a guess, but if her partner was already here, I suspect the urgency to get here revolved around the pregnancy, as, if the child is born in the UK then would that make the baby a UK citizen & then, would that entitle the mother to citizenship too?

User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 2934
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 7:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by iainpeden »

I hadn’t realised she was the pregnant victim.
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

vandal
Posts: 1389
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 1:13 am

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by vandal »

iainpeden wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 12:06 pm
I hadn’t realised she was the pregnant victim.
Apologies - she may not have been, I've read all the posts & assumed that's who we were all referring to 😳 - but - the pregnant lady was a victim none the less & partner aside (if her partner was not in the UK), the same question remains - would she have been entitled (automatically or otherwise) to citizenship if her child was born in the UK?

User avatar
pbeardmore
Posts: 4475
Joined: Thu 06 Nov 2008, 9:16 am

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by pbeardmore »

I think it's a fare comment that the photos and "back story" of Maryam Noori Mohammad Amin are in sharp contrast (to say the least) with the narative that has been widely promoted. We are given a vision of desperate people, fleeing from threat, persecution and danger , trying to get to a country where they will be safe etc etc. I know it sounds harsh, given the tragic circumstances, but it's just fact that Iain's point is factually correct. Tommy has the expertise on this area but I assume trying to be in the same country as your fiancee has zero legal weight re applying for asylum? What exactly is unsafe about living in Italy or France? (26,500 people applied for asylum in Italy during 2020. Clearly, for these people, they felt safe and secure enough to want to live there legally. How is it safe for these people but not for others? I'm trying to get me head around this.)

PS Happy to be corrected but I cant find any indication that she was the preganant woman on the boat.

PS Are there specific figures re the success rate in asylum seekers coming via channel/boat? Surely, the fact that so few failed claimants are sent back must play a role in the "risk assesesment" re making the trip?
“The best computer is a man, and it’s the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labour.”

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 6249
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Tommy »

I’ve been driving most of the weekend, so not able (nor inclined to respond to most points, but (and I’ll caveat it with the fact that I hate “destroyed” in the tweet, but this clip itself is instructional), and answers PB’s query re success rate of those who claim asylum and arrive here by boat:


User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 6249
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Tommy »

iainpeden wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 11:00 am
On Tommy's idea of an organised ferry crossing, well what then?
My “idea” is simply that the U.K. should re-open the safe and legal routes that it has currently closed.

But the “what then” question is quite easy - on the whole, humans will stop drowning in the channel, and the people smugglers and gangs on the French beaches will be out of a business.

User avatar
boff180
UKAR Staff
Posts: 9142
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 2:28 pm
Location: Solihull
Contact:

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by boff180 »

One EU representative made a comment on TV today along the lines of....

The British strapline during Brexit was to take back control. Perhaps they should practice what they preach and take back control of the refugees (by opening up legal routes).

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 6249
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Tommy »

As to the question of “why don’t they feel safe elsewhere in Europe” I’ve already said that it depends literally down to personal circumstance.

Repeating myself, but there is no obligation for them to settle in the first safe country (and that’s illogical anyway because that would disproportionately affect countries signed up to the convention).

I mean, flip it around - why don’t they feel safe in Britain? Why Italy or France? What if France and Italy said that to their applicants? “Why can’t you go to Britain” or anywhere else. If every European nation did that, it would end up with no one taking anyone, surely. It’s just illogical, to me.

In any event, for the vast vast vast majority of asylum seekers and refugees, that’s exactly what they do. The U.K. doesn’t take close, or anywhere close, to the majority of asylum seekers or refugees, even those they send back after a failed application. No one crosses the channel and deals with people smugglers, and risks their lives for fun.

The same as people like FGR2 claiming that some of these people are “economic migrants”. For, I don’t know, the fourth I think, time now, the fact that the U.K. grants the majority of these people asylum means that the majority of them are genuine, does it not?

That’s not a point of view, that’s surely a fact that even the most ardent anti-asylum seeker must understand.

And a final point - the UK’s asylum application process is a really really tough and rigorous process. It filters out those who aren’t genuine.

So given that the majority of these people are granted asylum *must* mean that they can convince the U.K. why they need to resettle here, rather than elsewhere in Europe. Again, that’s not a point of view, that’s just the fact.

FGR2
Posts: 2744
Joined: Mon 15 Sep 2008, 11:12 am

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by FGR2 »

Details of those in the fateful boat have emerged over the last few days. None reported so far in my view are genuine refugees/asylum seekers.

One was the aforementioned woman student from Kurdish Iraq (mentioned by Iain) who decided to join her Fiancé (who apparently had citizenship) in the UK.

The family of five who died, also from Kurdish Iraq had apparently turned down the option for asylum in France because it was quoted “French is a hard language to learn” and “you can get jobs and go to school in the UK.”

One person that survived was also from Kurdish Iraq. He was attempting to cross the channel to get a job so he could pay his sister’s medical bills. Commendable, but again illegally entering the country for financial purposes.

None I have heard of so far were escaping war or persecution or a threat to their life in their own country. I do wonder what their grounds for Asylum would have been, or whether if a safe/fast track system (so beloved by liberals) had been in place whether a) they would have qualified for asylum and b) if they were rejected whether it would have stopped them subsequently paying criminal gangs and getting on a boat anyway.

I guess a large number are accepted because they claim to be from a war torn area (and are Christian and their life is at risk if they return). We have no way of verifying who they are and have to accept them.

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 6249
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Tommy »

That’s fine, you’re welcome not to view them as genuine refugees, but unless you work in the determination of asylum applications, just because you don’t view them as genuine does not mean that they aren’t genuine.

I’m just saying - there’s a choice, we either re-open the safe routes so people aren’t coming by boats and drowning (and giving criminal gangs business), or we don’t. If we don’t, the gangs will continue to profit, and people will continue to arrive by boat/drown.

You may be completely ok with gangs making money and people drowning, I, indeed, am not.

User avatar
pbeardmore
Posts: 4475
Joined: Thu 06 Nov 2008, 9:16 am

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by pbeardmore »

Tommy, you make some good points but, again, based on the assumption that there is a genuine need to flee from persecution, violence etc, then it's reasonable that anyone should seek refuge as early as possible. If someone , for example, gains access to Italy, then why not apply? and yes, if their first access to a decent , well off liberal democracy is GB , then apply to GB first. There seems to be a concept that asylum seekers are in such a position that they have a "salad cart" of choice and they have both a legal and moral right to have a wide choice of where to apply and we have an obligation to fulfill their choice.

By defintion, these people are desperate. How does one compare that desperation with : Italy? no thanks Germany? No thanks France? no thanks GB via very very dangerous route at the hands of organised gangs? Yeah.
“The best computer is a man, and it’s the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labour.”

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 6249
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Tommy »

I take your point and respect it, PB, but as I said, it’s down to personal circumstances. But there are two points to make

A) there should be a presumption of a genuine case unless and until their application is fairly heard - that’s just basic, such as the presumption of innocence in English law. They should only be regarded as fake or not genuine once their application fails (and again, listen to that speech from Lord Kerr about how many of them are actually genuine)

B) it just kicks the can, doesn’t it. Why, indeed aren’t they safe in France? Well, maybe, but why did they even come to France? Why weren’t they safe in Italy, or Germany? Go back further, what about the Czech Republic of Romania? Hell, go back further, why weren’t they safe in Greece or Turkey? Why weren’t they “safe” the moment they crossed the border? And then we’d have the situation of Southern Europe having *all* the asylum seekers in Europe, which both you and I know is not fair not proportionate. If we were a South European country (I can dream!) then Johnson and his ilk would be demanding that those stuffy Northern Europeans should do more to help out, instead of leaving us to do it all.

I don’t know - it’s a personal issue, but for the nth time, the fact that the majority of these applications are being granted in the U.K. shows that they are genuine, and that they are/were right to come to the U.K, for whatever their personal reasons are for doing so.

I’m not going to continue to argue with people who don’t deal with that point, because you’re all ignoring it, yet it’s a fundamental issue.

FGR2
Posts: 2744
Joined: Mon 15 Sep 2008, 11:12 am

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by FGR2 »

Asylum Seekers are given legal protection.
They dump their paperwork so their history can’t be traced.
Just a few weeks ago it was implied that Asylum Seekers were converting to Christianity, so that they cannot be returned to a Muslim country.

Do we really believe that a large majority of the 26,000 that have arrived this year are all escaping persecution?

Our hands are pretty much tied.

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 6249
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Tommy »

FGR2 wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 5:29 pm
Asylum Seekers are given legal protection.
Clearly not, if they’re drowning because they can’t use the legal routes.
FGR2 wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 5:29 pm
They dump their paperwork so their history can’t be traced.
You’ve said this before. Whilst I can see a scenario where it has happened, you appear to be implying that “they” all do it. Happy to be proven wrong, but I don’t think that’s the case. For one thing, it makes their application much tougher if they can’t provide certain documents or evidence.
FGR2 wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 5:29 pm
Just a few weeks ago it was implied that Asylum Seekers were converting to Christianity, so that they cannot be returned to a Muslim country.
“Implied” is not “evidenced”, but even if that’s the case, someone is perfectly entitled to convert to another religion.
FGR2 wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 5:29 pm
Do we really believe that a large majority of the 26,000 that have arrived this year are all escaping persecution?
Oh, and the rest, yes. I have a presumption that they are all escaping war, famine, persecution, etc. Until their application is denied. That’s how it works. Likewise I presume anyone is innocent until a court finds them guilty.
FGR2 wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 5:29 pm
Our hands are pretty much tied.
By whom?

FGR2
Posts: 2744
Joined: Mon 15 Sep 2008, 11:12 am

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by FGR2 »

Tommy wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 5:41 pm
FGR2 wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 5:29 pm
Asylum Seekers are given legal protection.
Clearly not, if they’re drowning because they can’t use the legal routes.
FGR2 wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 5:29 pm
They dump their paperwork so their history can’t be traced.
You’ve said this before. Whilst I can see a scenario where it has happened, you appear to be implying that “they” all do it. Happy to be proven wrong, but I don’t think that’s the case. For one thing, it makes their application much tougher if they can’t provide certain documents or evidence.
FGR2 wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 5:29 pm
Just a few weeks ago it was implied that Asylum Seekers were converting to Christianity, so that they cannot be returned to a Muslim country.
“Implied” is not “evidenced”, but even if that’s the case, someone is perfectly entitled to convert to another religion.
FGR2 wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 5:29 pm
Do we really believe that a large majority of the 26,000 that have arrived this year are all escaping persecution?
Oh, and the rest, yes. I have a presumption that they are all escaping war, famine, persecution, etc. Until their application is denied. That’s how it works. Likewise I presume anyone is innocent until a court finds them guilty.
FGR2 wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 5:29 pm
Our hands are pretty much tied.
By whom?
In relation to safe legal routes, as I have said before, if someone isn’t successful, what is to stop them trying to subsequently arrive illegally?

Re. Converting religion, It was reported in the news after the terror incident in Liverpool, a number of Asylum Seekers had converted to Christianity over the years. It was hard to see if this was genuine but it was seen as a potential help to their asylum application.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc. ... 317097.amp

On the subject of documents, one of the mainstream news channels (BBC/Sky News) mentioned that it is harder to identify the victims, as they usually travel without any documents to identify who they are.

I go back to my original point in the idealistic world of Safe Fast Tracks. If 30,000 people applied, but 15,000 are deemed economic migrants, and are rejected on that basis, these people will still want to come here. Do we then have to accept these people too, because they may die taking an illegal and dangerous journey to get here?

A safe Fast track legal system is an idea but I fear it is not the silver bullet some seem to think it is.

vandal
Posts: 1389
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 1:13 am

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by vandal »

FGR2 wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 6:25 pm

In relation to safe legal routes, as I have said before, if someone isn’t successful, what is to stop them trying to subsequently arrive illegally?
On this point, I would assume that, had someone arrived legally, with relevant documentation & then their application was rejected, where would the incentive be to attempt an illegal entry without documentation?

Get here legally, have your application approved & you're free to seek employment, try to get a house, contribute to Society etc, get here illegally & you're detained somewhere until your case is heard.

Unless the system favours the anonymous over those that can provide evidence of their skills & background, I can't see why it's worth the risk.

FGR2
Posts: 2744
Joined: Mon 15 Sep 2008, 11:12 am

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by FGR2 »

vandal wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 7:07 pm
FGR2 wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 6:25 pm

In relation to safe legal routes, as I have said before, if someone isn’t successful, what is to stop them trying to subsequently arrive illegally?
On this point, I would assume that, had someone arrived legally, with relevant documentation & then their application was rejected, where would the incentive be to attempt an illegal entry without documentation?

Get here legally, have your application approved & you're free to seek employment, try to get a house, contribute to Society etc, get here illegally & you're detained somewhere until your case is heard.

Unless the system favours the anonymous over those that can provide evidence of their skills & background, I can't see why it's worth the risk.
I thought that the argument is people would apply directly from embassies or centres in Afghanistan/Iraq/Ethiopia. If accepted they would be allowed in. Unless I misunderstood they wouldn’t arrive, be processed in the UK potentially rejected, and then subsequently deported.

If you arrive here illegally without papers, say your life is in danger then it will be harder to send them back. The situation we have now.

User avatar
starbuck
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue 28 Mar 2017, 9:35 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by starbuck »

This situation to me highlights another failure of the European Union and illustrates just how fragile that union is when tested. Genuine asylum seekers should be processed at the point they enter the EU. You could have agreed entry points in Italy, Greece etc manned by staff from each country in the Union to process the applicants as quickly as possible. Each member state could have an allocation of asylum seekers on an agreed formula and those seeking asylum could list the 3 countries they would prefer to live in. After a certain period of time they would have european citizenship and move wherever they like under the free movement the EU is so proud of. The UK could even be a partner if we wanted to.

Tommy - I keep reading your point that the UK could re-open the routes into the country like we had before, I am assuming you mean when we were in the EU? If so that was also the time when we had the camps in Sangatte just outside Calais and the route into the country for mist was often in the back of an Arctic rather than a dinghy.

vandal
Posts: 1389
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 1:13 am

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by vandal »

FGR2 wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 8:02 pm

I thought that the argument is people would apply directly from embassies or centres in Afghanistan/Iraq/Ethiopia. If accepted they would be allowed in. Unless I misunderstood they wouldn’t arrive, be processed in the UK potentially rejected, and then subsequently deported.

If you arrive here illegally without papers, say your life is in danger then it will be harder to send them back. The situation we have now.
Being honest, I don't know the first thing about the application process, but I had considered there may be instances where someone has followed the correct procedure but then had to flee for any number of reasons, as opposed to hanging around & waiting to hear from the relevant Embassy in their Country. They may then attempt illegal entry, & if they get here, explain that they applied but had to leave their Homeland before hearing the outcome.

Is there any reliable information / credible sources proving that everyone attempting illegal entry has no documentation what so ever?

FarnboroJohn
Posts: 2475
Joined: Tue 28 Aug 2012, 6:57 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by FarnboroJohn »

vandal wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 8:44 pm
FGR2 wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 8:02 pm

I thought that the argument is people would apply directly from embassies or centres in Afghanistan/Iraq/Ethiopia. If accepted they would be allowed in. Unless I misunderstood they wouldn’t arrive, be processed in the UK potentially rejected, and then subsequently deported.

If you arrive here illegally without papers, say your life is in danger then it will be harder to send them back. The situation we have now.
Being honest, I don't know the first thing about the application process, but I had considered there may be instances where someone has followed the correct procedure but then had to flee for any number of reasons, as opposed to hanging around & waiting to hear from the relevant Embassy in their Country. They may then attempt illegal entry, & if they get here, explain that they applied but had to leave their Homeland before hearing the outcome.

Is there any reliable information / credible sources proving that everyone attempting illegal entry has no documentation what so ever?
I think it would be a brave Afghan that walked into the British Embassy in Kabul, applied for asylum and walked out again. I imagine the place is staked out by Taliban secret police - or not-so-secret police - and anyone going in and out has to account for the reason. Slipping over the border to any of the republics around or for that matter Pakistan must be easier and safer. Once on the move the temptation to keep moving in the desired direction without risking a setback early must be strong.

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 6249
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Tommy »

starbuck wrote:
Sun 28 Nov 2021, 8:39 pm
This situation to me highlights another failure of the European Union and illustrates just how fragile that union is when tested. Genuine asylum seekers should be processed at the point they enter the EU. You could have agreed entry points in Italy, Greece etc manned by staff from each country in the Union to process the applicants as quickly as possible…
The UK could even be a partner if we wanted to.
To be fair - That was the Dublin Convention, which we left on our withdrawal from the EU. Some parts remain extant (like the fact that an asylum seeker is perfectly entitled to apply for asylum in a country in which they wish to apply to and would be safe to do so - and before FGR2, IainP and others jump on with the nonsense hypotheticals again, that’s not my view, it’s simple the law - agree or disagree, that is what asylum seekers are currently entitled to) some parts, where the U.K. has now made its own rules, are no longer in force. Your hypothetical idea is the latter because now, the U.K. government rules expressly state that a) an application must be made in the U.K. and indeed b) that an application will not be considered until the applicant is, themselves. in the U.K.

You, Iain, and FGR2 might well be in favour of setting up offshore detention centres, but again, I’m not stating an opinion myself - just setting out the law, and the U.K. law is, quite clearly, that applicants need to come here to have their application considered.

As for the definition of safe and legal routes - quite a simple one:

By ‘safe and legal’ route, it means the formal sanction by the UK of journeys to the UK – e.g. where a visa is granted or available for the journey or the person is permitted to travel to the UK without a visa.

Anything less than that is not a safe and legal route.

People hiding in lorries (I think it’s “artics” rather than “Arctics”, but happy to be corrected) or drowning in the Channel are not safe and legal routes.

User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff
Posts: 6249
Joined: Mon 14 Mar 2011, 11:39 pm

Re: The UKAR politics thread

Post by Tommy »

And, I was thinking about FGR2’s repeated claims of fraudulent asylum claims. It didn’t sound right to me, so I dug up the law a bit more.

Fraudulent or deception used in the course of an application to the U.K. authorities are automatically refused by law. Anyone deliberately destroying their papers or using false ID will see their application refused by automatic operation of law.

Again, not a view - that’s just what the law is. And I hope me setting out the actual law allows more comfort than newspaper scare stories (which is what I suspect you base your claims on) do.

Post Reply