Immigration and Asylum (2 Viewers)

Forums New posts
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Pete said:
They currently can’t
Click to expand...
Brighton Sky Blue said:
Which brings me back to my original question: how is a refugee supposed to legally enter the country?
Click to expand...

This question is phrased poorly because refugee status is granted once your asylum claim has been accepted.

Given that the UK is an island no one can just cross a border to end up here. Therefore, the principle should be that claims are processed outside the UK. One of issues we’re having is that when we reject asylum claims, we cannot deport them and the ECHR is often cited.

The UK should definitely utilise pushback tactics in the channel to ensure small boats do not reach the UK mainland and any irregular arrival will have asylum rejected and deported. The point of this is a deterrent because numbers will drop off a cliff once human traffickers can no guarantee to their clients that they will land in the UK.

There are existing humanitarian programs that can be used to apply for asylum as we seen with Hong Kong and Ukrainian refugees.

The UK should also reserve the right to heavily restrict the numbers of asylum claims it accepts. Particularly, people who are likely to not integrate, be an economic drain or commit crimes.

What is your argument exactly in the grand scheme of things?

Sick Boy said:
My actual original reply was to challenge the highly dubious data source, which seems to be taken as a fact these days.
Click to expand...
It’s not a dubious data source, it’s from the Ministry of Justice. There’s also empirical evidence from other EU nations to corroborate the findings.
 
Last edited:
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
Ireland has roughly the same as Italy, India while better than Pakistan is nothing to write home about, Nordic countries may come out top.
 
mmttww

mmttww

Well-Known Member
Isn't comparing the behaviour / crimes committed by asylum seekers and British citizens a bit flawed? (I think that's what's happening in the thread anyway).

Not sure comparing crime rates of people stuck in hotels, unable to work etc. for months or years with those for folks living normal lives tells us much.

if people are talking about data for people who have gone through the asylum process and are residents, I get it and there's a debate to be had.
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Sick Boy said:
The source was Rob Bates’ Centre of Migration Control.
Click to expand...
Where was the data sourced from? The MoJ. That think tank mostly uses government sources…

If collate a bunch of data from FotMob and present it, I’m the ‘source’ but my data samples come from FotMob.
 
Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
Sick Boy said:
This was literally my original post. If you want to copy and paste graphs from Twitter or Reddit from a dubious think tank of a racist then crack on.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly, absolutely nothing on the subject matter, and then when called out you start talking about Thailand.

Now backed into a corner you throw the racist card out even though MMB has explained what you and others haven't read, but want to argue with because you feel uncomfortable about where we are with the facts.
 
Sick Boy

Sick Boy

Super Moderator
Earlsdon_Skyblue1 said:
Yes exactly, absolutely nothing on the subject matter, and then when called out you start talking about Thailand.

Now backed into a corner you throw the racist card out even though MMB has explained what you and others haven't read, but want to argue with because you feel uncomfortable about where we are with the facts.
Click to expand...
I'm not uncomfortable in any way at all, thanks.
Unlike you, I don't tar thousands/millions/billions of people with the same brush based on the actions of scumbags.
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Sick Boy said:
I'm not uncomfortable in any way at all, thanks.
Unlike you, I don't tar thousands/millions/billions of people with the same brush based on the actions of scumbags.
Click to expand...
Is this just all a storm in a teacup to you then?
That there’s no issue with criminality or welfare dependency.

We’re happy to use statistics to demonstrate men are more violent than women and younger people more violent than the elderly and so on… So why is it taboo to point out there may be issues with certain nationalities?

For example, data collected shows that there is next to no criminality of Japanese migrants, welfare dependency and in most instances are economic productive and net tax contributors.
 
Sick Boy

Sick Boy

Super Moderator
Mucca Mad Boys said:
Is this just all a storm in a teacup to you then?
That there’s no issue with criminality or welfare dependency.

We’re happy to use statistics to demonstrate men are more violent than women and younger people more violent than the elderly and so on… So why is it taboo to point out there may be issues with certain nationalities?

For example, data collected shows that there is next to no criminality of Japanese migrants, welfare dependency and in most instances are economic productive and net tax contributors.
Click to expand...
There's always been some kind of scapegoat over the years, whether it's asylum seekers, Muslims, people from the Caribbean, the Poles, the Irish etc. A lot of today's issue in the UK are related to a lack of public spending and austerity.
 
chiefdave

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
mmttww said:
Isn't comparing the behaviour / crimes committed by asylum seekers and British citizens a bit flawed? (I think that's what's happening in the thread anyway).

Not sure comparing crime rates of people stuck in hotels, unable to work etc. for months or years with those for folks living normal lives tells us much.

if people are talking about data for people who have gone through the asylum process and are residents, I get it and there's a debate to be had.
Click to expand...
You need to drill down a lot more on the data to draw any conclusions.

First step is to check the accuracy of the data. We've seen before that headline data is presented and then if you dig deeper there's issues such as a large percentage being discounted as unknown, differences in recording methods, certain groups being more or less likely to have data recorded.

Once you've established the data is accurate, or at least accurate enough that it is worth looking into, you'd need to split people out into different groups. So for example does the level of criminality, or the type of crime, vary for people from a particular country based on circumstance.

As you say once you do that you've got meaningful data to use and can identify where problems lie and how to resolve them.

Fail to do that and you risk an inherent bias, one way or another. We see it on here, when certain crimes occur people are falling over themselves to get on here and post it, but for other crimes that doesn't happen.
 
W

wingy

Well-Known Member
Just looking at the background in that picture,looks very pleasant I must say,congrats to the landlord or should I say agency on getting a return for their investor!
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys said:
The majority of the electorate accept that trade off. This is how leaving the ECHR has gone from fringe opinion to the mainstream in little over a year.

The current frameworks are just not working for us (or Europe) and there’s no sign of that changing. This is an issue that seems to be impacting Europe the most so perhaps we adapt similar regimes that Australia, Japan and the USA adhere too.

Japan’s grants around 1% (or thereabouts) of asylum claims, peaking at 9%. In the UK, our rate peaked at 76% in 2022 and before the Human Rights Act was enacted in law, it was around 8%.

Clearly the problem lies somewhere with the passing of the Human Rights Act that enshrined th ECHR in UK law. This is something David Blunkett and Jack Straw recognise when calling to reverse a measure they voted for. It’s clearly had v unintended consequences.
Click to expand...
And IF that's the case it suggests the mainstream of people don't understand that the ECHR also protects them and they'd lose a lot of legal protections if we got rid of it.
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Sick Boy said:
There's always been some kind of scapegoat over the years, whether it's asylum seekers, Muslims, people from the Caribbean, the Poles, the Irish etc. A lot of today's issue in the UK are related to a lack of public spending and austerity.
Click to expand...
Yep go back 9 years it was Eastern Europeans
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
And IF that's the case it suggests the mainstream of people don't understand that the ECHR also protects them and they'd lose a lot of legal protections if we got rid of it.
Click to expand...
How does it protect them if it prevents the government deporting violent criminals?

Anyway, you could rewrite the ECHR, amend the articles and how they’re applied and you have the same rights.

We’re going around in circles from previous convos, the bottom line is that Europe and the ECHR isn’t the only game in town. Our English common law traditions guarantees human rights and liberties in a robust way. The proof is Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
 
Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys said:
How does it protect them if it prevents the government deporting violent criminals?

Anyway, you could rewrite the ECHR, amend the articles and how they’re applied and you have the same rights.

We’re going around in circles from previous convos, the bottom line is that Europe and the ECHR isn’t the only game in town. Our English common law traditions guarantees human rights and liberties in a robust way. The proof is Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Click to expand...
Because there are more threats to them (many more likely to affect them day to day) than violent criminals that human rights legislation protects them from.

And rewriting/amending the ECHR and putting into UK legislation isn't the same thing as getting rid off it. The hardliners talking of getting rid of ECHR many are talking about getting rid of nanny state human rights legislation altogether don't give a fuck about others and assume their own lives and rights won't be affected, even though they will. For others it's just the European in the title and the idea that Europe is telling us what to do. Those more moderate and critical in their thinking like most parts of human rights legislation and want to keep them.
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys said:
How does it protect them if it prevents the government deporting violent criminals?

Anyway, you could rewrite the ECHR, amend the articles and how they’re applied and you have the same rights.

We’re going around in circles from previous convos, the bottom line is that Europe and the ECHR isn’t the only game in town. Our English common law traditions guarantees human rights and liberties in a robust way. The proof is Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Click to expand...
It’s more the rules based society than the particular acronym
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
Because there are more threats to them (many more likely to affect them day to day) than violent criminals that human rights legislation protects them from.

And rewriting/amending the ECHR and putting into UK legislation isn't the same thing as getting rid off it. The hardliners talking of getting rid of ECHR many are talking about getting rid of nanny state human rights legislation altogether don't give a fuck about others and assume their own lives and rights won't be affected, even though they will. For others it's just the European in the title and the idea that Europe is telling us what to do. Those more moderate and critical in their thinking like most parts of human rights legislation and want to keep them.
Click to expand...
Yes it would.

I’d actually go one step further and go as far to say that English common law traditions already guarantee all the human rights and liberties outlined in the ECHR.

Sky Blue Pete said:
It’s more the rules based society than the particular acronym
Click to expand...

If that’s the case, we don’t need the ECHR then.

It’s quite ironic seeing you two have no idea about our history. You’d think we didn’t have human rights before 1997.
 
Sky Blue Pete

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Mucca Mad Boys said:
Yes it would.

I’d actually go one step further and go as far to say that English common law traditions already guarantee all the human rights and liberties outlined in the ECHR.



If that’s the case, we don’t need the ECHR then.

It’s quite ironic seeing you two have no idea about our history. You’d think we didn’t have human rights before 1997.
Click to expand...
Ok clever clogs without looking what are the main tenets of the echr
 
Mucca Mad Boys

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Pete said:
Ok clever clogs without looking what are the main tenets of the echr
Click to expand...
There’s 10 articles Pete, which of these articles did the UK not adhere too before the ECHR was a thing?

The UK first had trials by jury in the 12th century (England at that point).

The ECHR is literally based on English and French laws (based on US Dec of Independence, which in turn is based on English common law)…

The issue isn’t the ECHR specifically, it’s how the ECJ has interpreted it and the judgements of the ECJ impacts the rulings in UK courts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top