Incitement to religious hatred....and other racist behaviour

[Hugo a Gogo]

bmw535i said:

I was not discussing the recruitment from the commonwealth. I used an example of someone being in this country and not being allowed family to live here because of the immigration rules. The guy could just as easily have worked at Tesco. I only know about this case because I have dealt with it personally.

Sadly, old Hugo has jumped on this in some desperate attempt to make out it's not true - I have no idea why and is now insisting this chap will be promoted and earn more very soon without having any knowledge (it seems) of the system.

I'm not that old, and I'm sure it's all true and terribly unfair

[anonymous-user]

Hugo a Gogo said:

I'm not that old, and I'm sure it's all true and terribly unfair

It is true yes. If this person had 1 child he would have to earn £22,400 before applying for them to enter. Further children would require £2400 each extra on his salary.

Those rules are there for very good reason - I suppose it is subjective whether or not they are fair. It is my opinion that those rules will probably relax slightly once we have control over EU migration. If not, then we should apply the same rules to all migrants whether they be from the EU or not.

[Elysium]

bmw535i said:

1. Asylum is not the same as discretionary leave - as I'm sure you well know. Do you know how long discretionary leave lasts for? It's 2.5 years at most. Given that most (62% in 2015) unaccompanied child refugees are aged 16 - 17, they will only spend a year here if they are refused asylum. What they can do of course, is then apply as an adult.

The figures for 2015 for child refugees under 17 applying for asylum:
Total: 1568. 346 were refused. i.e no discretion, no UASC and no humanitarian protection. They will have been removed.

2. So when you say deal with them properly in the first place, what do you mean? The choice is fairly binary, either they stay or go. You are saying by keeping them here it is doing them a disservice because they will have to leave when they are 18 (in a lot of cases). Sadly we cannot keep them all for the reasons previously discussed in this thread (cost, paucity of foster carers etc).

3. The system we have for dealing with unaccompanied child refugees is balanced and in the best interests of the UK. You cannot give a better alternative apart from saying we should do it differently.

4. I am supportive of the system we have for unaccompanied children refugees. I am not so supportive of the system we employ to reduce net migration - my example above is indicative of that.

Did you know that in 2015 there was a 148% increase (in 2015) on the previous year for age disputed applications. It is very difficult for those making the decision to make the right one when there appears to be so many people trying to take advantage of the system.

The issue is that asylum cases for unaccompanied minors appear to be given relatively limited consideration because discretionary leave to remain will always be given if it is refused. So they might as well wait look at it again when they are adults. The fact that the majority are given leave to remain appears to evidence this situation.

It looks like a short term fix, but the unintended consequence is the need to remove young adults who have spent years learning how to be British.

Given the numbers involved, I think it would be humane and of little consequence if the majority of children in this position were allowed to become permanent residents.

2.5 years is a huge amount of time for a 15 year old. I can't begin to imagine what a 17.5 year old would be going through when they are sent back to (say) Afghanistan after living in the UK for 2.5 years. Whilst children are more vulnerable than adults, I think it is absurd to expect that a vulnerable child will suddenly be capable of looking after themselves in a war stricken country that they have not lived in for years.

You say it is sad that we cannot keep them all. I am suggesting that we could change our priorities to do so. It appears that we are not that far apart in our views.

[anonymous-user]

Elysium said:

The issue is that asylum cases for unaccompanied minors appear to be given relatively limited consideration because discretionary leave to remain will always be given if it is refused. So they might as well wait look at it again when they are adults. The fact that the majority are given leave to remain appears to evidence this situation.

Discretionary leave is not always given if asylum is refused. I have shown you the figures, but you continue to insist on it?

Elysium said:

It looks like a short term fix, but the unintended consequence is the need to remove young adults who have spent years learning how to be British.

No, it is not an unintended consequence. People are given asylum based on their need - if they no longer need it because circumstances change it is right they are removed. Children who reach 18 are entitled to apply for asylum as an adult. Each case is treated on it's merits.

Elysium said:

Given the numbers involved, I think it would be humane and of little consequence if the majority of children in this position were allowed to become permanent residents.

We have already covered this - there is not enough money, foster carers etc. Also, think about the pull this would create - it would result in thousands more trying to come. You cannot say yes to everyone.

Elysium said:

2.5 years is a huge amount of time for a 15 year old. I can't begin to imagine what a 17.5 year old would be going through when they are sent back to (say) Afghanistan after living in the UK for 2.5 years. Whilst children are more vulnerable than adults, I think it is absurd to expect that a vulnerable child will suddenly be capable of looking after themselves in a war stricken country that they have not lived in for years.

Children who reach 18 are entitled to apply for asylum as an adult. Each case is treated on it's merits.

Elysium said:

You say it is sad that we cannot keep them all. I am suggesting that we could change our priorities to do so. It appears that we are not that far apart in our views.

I do not recall saying it is sad. I think that our priorities will probably change when we leave the EU. It is one of the reasons I voted leave in the EU referendum.

You say we could change our priorities, but you don't say how or what will become less of a priority. It is all very well saying something is absurd, inhumane etc, but if you can't suggest an alternative, it is just empty words.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 15th February 14:20

[Elysium]

bmw535i said:

I do not recall saying it is sad. I think that our priorities will probably change when we leave the EU. It is one of the reasons I voted leave in the EU referendum.

You say we could change our priorities, but you don't say how or what will become less of a priority. It is all very well saying something is absurd, inhumane etc, but if you can't suggest an alternative, it is just empty words.

You have a short memory. At 8:37am this morning you wrote the following:

bmw535i said:

2. So when you say deal with them properly in the first place, what do you mean? The choice is fairly binary, either they stay or go. You are saying by keeping them here it is doing them a disservice because they will have to leave when they are 18 (in a lot of cases). Sadly we cannot keep them all for the reasons previously discussed in this thread (cost, paucity of foster carers etc).

This suggested that you regretted the need to return people as soon as they turn 18, which I thought implied common ground?

As to your second point, I have suggested the alternative:

1. Deal with the asylum case properly in the beginning
2. Don't rely on Discretionary Leave to Remain as a short cut stalling tactic
3. Allow vulnerable unaccompanied minors to stay in this country for the longer term

[anonymous-user]

Elysium said:

This suggested that you regretted the need to return people as soon as they turn 18, which I thought implied common ground?

As to your second point, I have suggested the alternative:

1. Deal with the asylum case properly in the beginning
2. Don't rely on Discretionary Leave to Remain as a short cut stalling tactic
3. Allow vulnerable unaccompanied minors to stay in this country for the longer term

Not all people are returned when they turn 18 - in a perfect world we would have the resources etc to be able to help everyone - including our own needy.

If we allowed all minors to stay it would create a completely untenable pull - we would literally be inundated. It is just not an option. The government pays the local authority £114 a day for each child migrant if they stay. It is unaffordable to expect every applicant to be able to stay.

We just don't have the money.

If you have an alternative answer then great, but I'm fairly confident other options will have been explored by the government.

Where should we cut the money from to afford it?

[Elysium]

bmw535i said:

Elysium said:

This suggested that you regretted the need to return people as soon as they turn 18, which I thought implied common ground?

As to your second point, I have suggested the alternative:

1. Deal with the asylum case properly in the beginning
2. Don't rely on Discretionary Leave to Remain as a short cut stalling tactic
3. Allow vulnerable unaccompanied minors to stay in this country for the longer term

Not all people are returned when they turn 18 - in a perfect world we would have the resources etc to be able to help everyone - including our own needy.

If we allowed all minors to stay it would create a completely untenable pull - we would literally be inundated. It is just not an option. The government pays the local authority £114 a day for each child migrant if they stay. It is unaffordable to expect every applicant to be able to stay.

We just don't have the money.

If you have an alternative answer then great, but I'm fairly confident other options will have been explored by the government.

Where should we cut the money from to afford it?

That £114 a day is for minors. We are talking about what happens when they are 18. At that point, they will be no more of a burden on the state than any other young adult.

Given the current numbers that seems quite affordable.

I can't counter your suggestion that this will dramatically increase the numbers going forward as it will act as a draw for future migrants. I simply don't know if that is true.

I have spent some time with Govt ministers and senior civil servants in discussions around policy and in my experience they often get it wrong and struggle to act on expert advice. I don't know if this is applicable here, but I would not be so quick to assume all options will have been properly explored. It still looks to me as if there is a unintended consequence here, where practical implementation of the 'rules' on the ground has led to a perverse outcome.

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

[anonymous-user]

Elysium said:

That £114 a day is for minors. We are talking about what happens when they are 18. At that point, they will be no more of a burden on the state than any other young adult.

Given the current numbers that seems quite affordable.

I can't counter your suggestion that this will dramatically increase the numbers going forward as it will act as a draw for future migrants. I simply don't know if that is true.

I have spent some time with Govt ministers and senior civil servants in discussions around policy and in my experience they often get it wrong and struggle to act on expert advice. I don't know if this is applicable here, but I would not be so quick to assume all options will have been properly explored. It still looks to me as if there is a unintended consequence here, where practical implementation of the 'rules' on the ground has led to a perverse outcome.

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

Yes but they will have arrived here as a child costing £114 a day until that point. Your point makes no sense.

We cannot accept every child into the country. If you don't understand or believe the pull to the UK, go and speak to some refugees.

The rules are constantly evolving for both child and adult refugees/migrants. For example, this year (1 May if I remember correctly) the English test to get leave to remain/citizenship is to get harder.