Brexit - was it worth it? (Vol. 4)
Discussion
Killboy said:
don'tbesilly said:
A little bit of googling suggests 93% of them claim asylum, and the success rate is around 85%?It seems word got around, possibly spread by trafficers, that if you got into the UK you could stay under TMSA. So lots paid good money to be trafficked.
You may remember the UK signed an agreement not long ago with Albania to make deportation easier. A story in the Guardian said the agreement signed by the UK, differed from that Albania signed with France, so the UK could not share data until a claim had been started.
The refusal of the UK government to consider claims made by those arriving by boat for three months means it actually about 5 months before any processing starts. So it likely the UK can deport many of the Albanians but it had to keep them in hotels because it would not consider the application.
Mrr T said:
If you hunt the media it seems there was a large influx of Albanian last year. The figure for the number of successful applicants is from previous years. Most applicants where not under the UNCR but TMSA.
It seems word got around, possibly spread by trafficers, that if you got into the UK you could stay under TMSA. So lots paid good money to be trafficked.
You may remember the UK signed an agreement not long ago with Albania to make deportation easier. A story in the Guardian said the agreement signed by the UK, differed from that Albania signed with France, so the UK could not share data until a claim had been started.
The refusal of the UK government to consider claims made by those arriving by boat for three months means it actually about 5 months before any processing starts. So it likely the UK can deport many of the Albanians but it had to keep them in hotels because it would not consider the application.
Ah, so thats what makes people not "genuine asylum seekers"? Clever accounting?It seems word got around, possibly spread by trafficers, that if you got into the UK you could stay under TMSA. So lots paid good money to be trafficked.
You may remember the UK signed an agreement not long ago with Albania to make deportation easier. A story in the Guardian said the agreement signed by the UK, differed from that Albania signed with France, so the UK could not share data until a claim had been started.
The refusal of the UK government to consider claims made by those arriving by boat for three months means it actually about 5 months before any processing starts. So it likely the UK can deport many of the Albanians but it had to keep them in hotels because it would not consider the application.
Mortarboard said:
Mrr T said:
The refusal of the UK government to consider claims made by those arriving by boat for three months
Anybody know the reason for this?M.
Since the UK has no where to move them to it just increased delays.
There is no logic to the policy except to try to look tough.
Mrr T said:
Mortarboard said:
Mrr T said:
The refusal of the UK government to consider claims made by those arriving by boat for three months
Anybody know the reason for this?M.
Since the UK has no where to move them to it just increased delays.
There is no logic to the policy except to try to look tough.
So essentially an "albanian" goes through the first assessment, then claims asylum.
Genius system.
So it's essentially: "Welcome to the UK, if you're tired and a bit stressed, how about a relaxing two to three month hotel stay before embarking on the next stage of your asylum journey?"
M.
don'tbesilly said:
chrispmartha said:
don'tbesilly said:
Is your calculator broken?The graph provided the numbers, was it not clear enough?
chrispmartha said:
don'tbesilly said:
Yes the graph proved my point, most aren’t from Albania.Mortarboard said:
Mrr T said:
Mortarboard said:
Mrr T said:
The refusal of the UK government to consider claims made by those arriving by boat for three months
Anybody know the reason for this?M.
Since the UK has no where to move them to it just increased delays.
There is no logic to the policy except to try to look tough.
So essentially an "albanian" goes through the first assessment, then claims asylum.
Genius system.
So it's essentially: "Welcome to the UK, if you're tired and a bit stressed, how about a relaxing two to three month hotel stay before embarking on the next stage of your asylum journey?"
M.
We need to wait for data but my guess is most from Albania who arrived by boat will not qualify for asylum under the MSA. That mean most will be deported.
At the moment they are in a hotel for about 5 months before the UK starts processing the claim. At that point the UK can share data with the Albania authorities who will track the details and most will be refused. It means they get a nice break in a UK hotel at our expense.
Edited by Mrr T on Friday 3rd March 18:09
turbobloke said:
Which, looking at the data, isn't the main point. As the largest group, what's going on in Albania by way of religious/political etc persecution at life threatening level that we aren't being told about? The main point is, if seekers have a genuine case, then they should and surely will be recognised and be granted asylum. Of such matters, at face value UK is doing better (60%) than EU+ (40%) from data posted recently. Claims that having a rigorous approach makes UK less 'progressive' don't stack up. It's appropriate to take care over both identification and response.
Or the UK could just be more looser with checks, and letting some more in than should be.Either folk are genuine or not. Letting in a bigger percentage bears no relationship with the number of genuine asylum seekers.
Could just as easily be interpreted that the EU gets more economic migrants presenting as asylum seekers.
M.
Edited by Mortarboard on Friday 3rd March 17:48
Mrr T said:
Albania is a safeish country. It highly unlikely many from Albania qualify for asylum under the UNCR. If you look at data from previous years safety was offered, mainly under the MSA, to women who had been trafficked.
We need to wait for data but my guess is most from Albania who arrived by boat will not qualify for asylum under the MSA. That mean most will be deported.
At the moment they are in a hotel for about 5 months before the UK starts processing the claim. At that point the UK can share data with the Albania authorities who will track the details and most will be refused. It means they get a nice break in a UK hotel at our expense.
What has changed this year for them? The rates is successful applications in previous years seem to be overwhelmingly successful?We need to wait for data but my guess is most from Albania who arrived by boat will not qualify for asylum under the MSA. That mean most will be deported.
At the moment they are in a hotel for about 5 months before the UK starts processing the claim. At that point the UK can share data with the Albania authorities who will track the details and most will be refused. It means they get a nice break in a UK hotel at our expense.
Edited by Mrr T on Friday 3rd March 18:09
Mortarboard said:
crankedup5 said:
Crux of the issue isn’t it, and why we have to hold these people in hotels at great cost until we can establish their Countries of origin. Stats, if you can believe them, offer some information regarding this.
It really shouldn't be that hard to determine where someone if from via interview.But processing times in pretty much all countries seems to take forever. I suspect resources applied seems to be the main reason for delays.
M.
undergrowth.No idea why they would do that
crankedup5 said:
How can those people afford to pay thousands of pounds to traffickers, especially when they have fled from extreme hazard of a war zone. And why if they have wealth risk their lives crossing the channel . For me people who have wealth have the ability to create a new life in any of the Countries that they have passed through getting to the English Channel, seems far fetched and nonsensical. Sure a few may have relatives here already.
They use all their life savings because they are desperate to flee their war torn country or persecution. Whether that have wealth or not it’s about whether they can access other methods.
Your statements are not supported by fact
blueg33 said:
crankedup5 said:
How can those people afford to pay thousands of pounds to traffickers, especially when they have fled from extreme hazard of a war zone. And why if they have wealth risk their lives crossing the channel . For me people who have wealth have the ability to create a new life in any of the Countries that they have passed through getting to the English Channel, seems far fetched and nonsensical. Sure a few may have relatives here already.
They use all their life savings because they are desperate to flee their war torn country or persecution. Whether that have wealth or not it’s about whether they can access other methods.
Your statements are not supported by fact
turbobloke said:
As you're keen on support from facts, what war / persecution have the major group, Albanians, been fleeing from? According to the infallible (not a fact, a jokey adjective) BBC under the heading 'What makes migrants leave Albania?' low salaries, corrupt politicians and administrators, poor working conditions and a low quality of life are given as their main reasons. No mention of war or persecution. Other origins of smaller groups will differ of course. At least while this theme persists we can ponder on the performance of EU+ compared to UK and as cited previously, it's not better, according to data from the EU and UK (possibly describable as supporting facts).
Now look here TB, there are facts that relate to undeniable real world events and, to some here, there are ‘facts’ that are based on estimates of what has happened and what will definitely happen in the future based on modelling that admits its inputs are based on estimates and assumptions. You need to be very clear whether you are referring to facts or ‘facts’.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff