Comment on NHS staff who visit patients at home say St George’s flags can mean ‘no-go zones’
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 16 hours agoVery few people are gaming the system
I suspect you wouldn’t like that solution though because in the end it will likely remove less than a percent or two of asylum seekers
Gov.UK says it is 50%, or 55,700 people.
39% (43,600) of asylum seekers arrived on a small boat and a further 11% (12,100) entered through other irregular routes (on lorries, shipping containers, or without relevant documentation)
55,700 people with no regard for the law or nation entering during 2025 alone is deeply troubling.
TheJesusaurus@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
Neither of the things you just said prevent someone from seeing asylum. It’s the UK government that has no regard for the law, they have a duty to process these claims as signatories of the UN convention on the rights of refugees.
Hey, you’re that same bozo who was trying to tell me he didn’t know 14 88 was a dog whistle earlier, I wonder if your opinions on this are fact based and well researched…
The UK government can not like these people as much as it wants, it doesn’t make their asylum claims illegal
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 15 hours ago
I think you’ve banged the nail on the head - that’s why people are annoyed. It SHOULD prevent them from gaining asylum. The law is outdated and it’s funding a people smuggling industry. Every claim where the seeker came through from a safe country such as France should be rejected immediately. They’re not refugees. The asylum law is for refugees. Australia was able to solve it and we almost had it with the (albeit overpriced) Rwanda policy.
Before I get assumed to be a racist, I actually think the UK law to immigrate legally is too strict. The thresholds are too high and requiring one for a british citizen with non british close family members is borderline racism.
TheJesusaurus@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
British citizens don’t require anything to immigrate whether they have a spouse or child or where the spouse, child, lack of spouse or lack of child are from.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 15 hours ago
The spouse and children should be given a visa regardless
TheJesusaurus@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
Oh my god… Wait… You’re PRO rawanda refugee policy? Oh please do tell me your thoughts on the benefits of that program
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 15 hours ago
Because it would mean people trying to get to the UK illegally from a safe country would be sent to Rwanda instead. So unless they are trying to get to Rwanda intentionally, they’ll stop coming into the UK
TheJesusaurus@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
Wether it shouldn’t or shouldn’t is immaterial to this conversation. To follow both UK and international law all these asylum claims need to be processed.
If showing up on a boat disqualified you, the Tories would be chomping at the bit to process them and turf them.
The things your saying all sound lovely and in a perfect world of it was like that we might agree that it was better.
There’s no point carrying on this conversation if you’re going to continue to claim that people arriving on small boats and other irregular means are illegal
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 15 hours ago
It’s not ethically right. Sure they should be processed, but that processing shouldn’t take very long considering they just came from France.