Comment on Record 128 people cross Channel in one small boat
matt1126@feddit.uk 3 days agoI’m curious what you consider the legal routes for entry are for asylum seekers and refugees?
Comment on Record 128 people cross Channel in one small boat
matt1126@feddit.uk 3 days agoI’m curious what you consider the legal routes for entry are for asylum seekers and refugees?
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 3 days ago
Most asylum seekers have entered the UK legally, it’s just that a change of circumstances means they cannot return home. There are also some people who may stow away or use a forged passport to get on a plane to the UK from an unsafe country. Probably not as sound, but still legitimate.
Also, resettlement schemes, if any are held. But if they aren’t held, this doesn’t automatically entitle people to break in illegally. They happen on our terms.
The issue is whenever you come here from a safe country. That’s not fleeing war. That’s just acting entitled and showing disregard for our nation. The type of person who does this is likely to show disregard in other ways, too.
matt1126@feddit.uk 3 days ago
So the legal routes are:
Apart from that there is no legal obligation on refugees to stop in the first safe country, this also would mean we should not have accepted any Ukrainian refugees, they must have travelled through Poland and other safe countries to get here so by your definition they are now a problem as they are no longer fleeing war.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 days ago
Yeah, and that’s my point. That whole law is stupid and needs to be repealed.
We accepted them via a resettlement scheme. If there wasn’t a resettlement scheme, then they shouldn’t have come here.
Resettlement schemes exist generally to fulfill responsibilities (such as with Hong Kong) or to take a load off of our neighbours (such as Ukraine, or ones that happened with Syrians ages ago in the EU days)