Refugees / Asylum seekers crossing the channel
Discussion
davhill said:
70%?
here are the latest date I can find...
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigrati...
Note that even this is out of date in that there's no mention of Syria.
Adding the percentages together and dviding by 10 gives a mean of 48.4%
Note also what is telling about top 'Top Ten', pop pickers.
Adding the word 'war' or marking the relevant columns in red would
make a massive difference.
Now submit answers defining 'asyum' and 'refugee'.
Perhaps there aren't that many applications from Syrians?, hence why they don't make the top ten. here are the latest date I can find...
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigrati...
Note that even this is out of date in that there's no mention of Syria.
Adding the percentages together and dviding by 10 gives a mean of 48.4%
Note also what is telling about top 'Top Ten', pop pickers.
Adding the word 'war' or marking the relevant columns in red would
make a massive difference.
Now submit answers defining 'asyum' and 'refugee'.
davhill said:
rscott said:
Not sure what you think that adding them together and dividing by 10 will tell you.
Far better to read this part of the linked page :-
1.3 Grant rate
In year ending March 2020, 54% of initial decisions on asylum applications were grants of asylum, humanitarian protection or alternative forms of leave (such as discretionary leave or UASC leave). This was the highest initial decision grant rate on record, up from 39% in the previous year.
Data from the Home Office ‘cohort’ analysis, published annually in Asy_D04, show that the final grant rate typically increases by 10 to 20 percentage points following appeal. More detailed analysis can be found in the August edition of Immigration statistics
So 54% granted initially, plus 10-20% on appeal is in the region of 70%
I was after the mean but I don't claim to be a mathematician. Far better to read this part of the linked page :-
1.3 Grant rate
In year ending March 2020, 54% of initial decisions on asylum applications were grants of asylum, humanitarian protection or alternative forms of leave (such as discretionary leave or UASC leave). This was the highest initial decision grant rate on record, up from 39% in the previous year.
Data from the Home Office ‘cohort’ analysis, published annually in Asy_D04, show that the final grant rate typically increases by 10 to 20 percentage points following appeal. More detailed analysis can be found in the August edition of Immigration statistics
So 54% granted initially, plus 10-20% on appeal is in the region of 70%
What is obvious is that the success rate has to reduce as part of
an increasingly tough approach.
Why does the success rate need to reduce (or increase) ? Surely if someone meets the criteria set down in law for getting asylum they should get it. Or are you suggesting that we only admit X per year, no matter if that means refusing entry to other worthy cases if we've hit that number.
Condi said:
PRTVR said:
The myth is that the people coming across in dinghies are going to be net contributors, do you honestly believe that ?
What jobs are they going to get ? How much will they be paid ?
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2...
You have no evidence either way. The 18 year old on his way here in a dinghy could become a doctor, a lawyer, whatever. Economic migrants - in any country - are usually highly motivated to work, because without the work they don't have a way to live. Also, if you've paid £5000 and travelled in all sorts of dodgy vehicles to get here, your motivation has to be pretty high. What jobs are they going to get ? How much will they be paid ?
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2...
Ironically until the point they are granted asylum or deported back home they cannot legally work and are a burden on the taxpayer, and it is those people who have to work in the grey and black markets. If they are legally allowed to be here it is much easier for them to get a proper job, and much easier for the government to tax them.
Certainly the problem of not being able to work legally brings a lot of attendant problems.
rscott said:
That would only give the mean if all the countries had the same number of applicants.
Why does the success rate need to reduce (or increase) ? Surely if someone meets the criteria set down in law for getting asylum they should get it. Or are you suggesting that we only admit X per year, no matter if that means refusing entry to other worthy cases if we've hit that number.
Not at all. I suggest it should be the other way around. Certainly, x geunine claimants a year would be fine but y economic migrants p.a. will take all the resources and more. Why does the success rate need to reduce (or increase) ? Surely if someone meets the criteria set down in law for getting asylum they should get it. Or are you suggesting that we only admit X per year, no matter if that means refusing entry to other worthy cases if we've hit that number.
I suggest taking a look at the graphs I posted. War in China? War in India? War in Pakistan? I've heard
of the Cold War but is there a new thing called The Silent War? Or is there some sort of media blindness at work?
davhill said:
rscott said:
That would only give the mean if all the countries had the same number of applicants.
Why does the success rate need to reduce (or increase) ? Surely if someone meets the criteria set down in law for getting asylum they should get it. Or are you suggesting that we only admit X per year, no matter if that means refusing entry to other worthy cases if we've hit that number.
Not at all. I suggest it should be the other way around. Certainly, x geunine claimants a year would be fine but y economic migrants p.a. will take all the resources and more. Why does the success rate need to reduce (or increase) ? Surely if someone meets the criteria set down in law for getting asylum they should get it. Or are you suggesting that we only admit X per year, no matter if that means refusing entry to other worthy cases if we've hit that number.
I suggest taking a look at the graphs I posted. War in China? War in India? War in Pakistan? I've heard
of the Cold War but is there a new thing called The Silent War? Or is there some sort of media blindness at work?
2020 Pakistan - 400 people were granted asylum, 3 humanitarian protection, 38 resettlement scheme, 98 granted other leave. That includes dependants (around 10-20% of those figures).
834 refused asylum and 245 withdrew their applications.
Home Office guidance here explains why many may be granted asylum - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/
sta... . Here's a case of a Pakistani asylum seeker who would seem to have a fairly good reason to remain here - https://news.sky.com/story/i-still-dont-feel-free-... .
Around half the successful applicants were from the Middle East, mainly Iran and Syria, which I think most people agree aren't the most peaceful regions in the world.
rscott said:
You think war is the only reason someone might seek entry under those rules? Did you look at the detailed data behind those graphs?
2020 Pakistan - 400 people were granted asylum, 3 humanitarian protection, 38 resettlement scheme, 98 granted other leave. That includes dependants (around 10-20% of those figures).
834 refused asylum and 245 withdrew their applications.
Home Office guidance here explains why many may be granted asylum - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sta... .
Here's a case of a Pakistani asylum seeker who would seem to have a fairly good reason to remain here - https://news.sky.com/story/i-still-dont-feel-free-... .
Around half the successful applicants were from the Middle East, mainly Iran and Syria, which I think most people agree aren't the most peaceful regions in the world.
So, Azeem Wazir got a fatwa and now doesn't feel free in this country. What is imprisoning him? 2020 Pakistan - 400 people were granted asylum, 3 humanitarian protection, 38 resettlement scheme, 98 granted other leave. That includes dependants (around 10-20% of those figures).
834 refused asylum and 245 withdrew their applications.
Home Office guidance here explains why many may be granted asylum - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/
sta... . Here's a case of a Pakistani asylum seeker who would seem to have a fairly good reason to remain here - https://news.sky.com/story/i-still-dont-feel-free-... .
Around half the successful applicants were from the Middle East, mainly Iran and Syria, which I think most people agree aren't the most peaceful regions in the world.
And the .gov link = 'Page not found'.
Note that I didn't seek to define war. A war is obviously something to flee,as is persecution. However,
many are claiming to be fleeing such things and their claims are false. Percentages illustrating the
relative numbers of false claimants and genuine ones would be very interesting.
davhill said:
rscott said:
You think war is the only reason someone might seek entry under those rules? Did you look at the detailed data behind those graphs?
2020 Pakistan - 400 people were granted asylum, 3 humanitarian protection, 38 resettlement scheme, 98 granted other leave. That includes dependants (around 10-20% of those figures).
834 refused asylum and 245 withdrew their applications.
Home Office guidance here explains why many may be granted asylum - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sta... .
Here's a case of a Pakistani asylum seeker who would seem to have a fairly good reason to remain here - https://news.sky.com/story/i-still-dont-feel-free-... .
Around half the successful applicants were from the Middle East, mainly Iran and Syria, which I think most people agree aren't the most peaceful regions in the world.
So, Azeem Wazir got a fatwa and now doesn't feel free in this country. What is imprisoning him? 2020 Pakistan - 400 people were granted asylum, 3 humanitarian protection, 38 resettlement scheme, 98 granted other leave. That includes dependants (around 10-20% of those figures).
834 refused asylum and 245 withdrew their applications.
Home Office guidance here explains why many may be granted asylum - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/
sta... . Here's a case of a Pakistani asylum seeker who would seem to have a fairly good reason to remain here - https://news.sky.com/story/i-still-dont-feel-free-... .
Around half the successful applicants were from the Middle East, mainly Iran and Syria, which I think most people agree aren't the most peaceful regions in the world.
And the .gov link = 'Page not found'.
Note that I didn't seek to define war. A war is obviously something to flee,as is persecution. However,
many are claiming to be fleeing such things and their claims are false. Percentages illustrating the
relative numbers of false claimants and genuine ones would be very interesting.
The official stats confirm that, for Pakistan's about 1/3 of those claiming asylum get it.
War isn't the only reason someone may claim asylum though - it's not uncommon for political opponents to get it when their life has been threatened. I'd say most would think the Chinese Muslims would be eligible for it to, if they managed to get out the country, given some of the abysmal treatment they've received.
rscott said:
Forum censors the address, but if you reply to the post you can see it.
The official stats confirm that, for Pakistan's about 1/3 of those claiming asylum get it.
War isn't the only reason someone may claim asylum though - it's not uncommon for political opponents to get it when their life has been threatened. I'd say most would think the Chinese Muslims would be eligible for it to, if they managed to get out the country, given some of the abysmal treatment they've received.
Replying to see the censored address. The official stats confirm that, for Pakistan's about 1/3 of those claiming asylum get it.
War isn't the only reason someone may claim asylum though - it's not uncommon for political opponents to get it when their life has been threatened. I'd say most would think the Chinese Muslims would be eligible for it to, if they managed to get out the country, given some of the abysmal treatment they've received.
Additional: nothing to see.
Edited by davhill on Saturday 27th March 17:27
Edited by davhill on Saturday 27th March 17:43
By back do you mean the migrants ?
If so things are getting worse, the size of the boats have increased , they are shipping them across in larger inflatables that can hold more than 30 at a time, its just not been reported by the MSM.
Nigel Farage talking about the subject.
https://youtu.be/R0dKkzguhxE
If so things are getting worse, the size of the boats have increased , they are shipping them across in larger inflatables that can hold more than 30 at a time, its just not been reported by the MSM.
Nigel Farage talking about the subject.
https://youtu.be/R0dKkzguhxE
PRTVR said:
By back do you mean the migrants ?
If so things are getting worse, the size of the boats have increased , they are shipping them across in larger inflatables that can hold more than 30 at a time, its just not been reported by the MSM.
Nigel Farage talking about the subject.
https://youtu.be/R0dKkzguhxE
Yep, I saw a Farage interview earlier. Yesterday morning,If so things are getting worse, the size of the boats have increased , they are shipping them across in larger inflatables that can hold more than 30 at a time, its just not been reported by the MSM.
Nigel Farage talking about the subject.
https://youtu.be/R0dKkzguhxE
a single RHIB showed up with 30 on board, followed by another in
the evening with 38 aboard. If every one signs up for support,
that's £1,506 gone every week for healthy food, clothing and toiletries.
Plus, of course, rent or accommodation, NHS, etc.
Home office asses need to be got into gear fast.
davhill said:
PRTVR said:
By back do you mean the migrants ?
If so things are getting worse, the size of the boats have increased , they are shipping them across in larger inflatables that can hold more than 30 at a time, its just not been reported by the MSM.
Nigel Farage talking about the subject.
https://youtu.be/R0dKkzguhxE
Yep, I saw a Farage interview earlier. Yesterday morning,If so things are getting worse, the size of the boats have increased , they are shipping them across in larger inflatables that can hold more than 30 at a time, its just not been reported by the MSM.
Nigel Farage talking about the subject.
https://youtu.be/R0dKkzguhxE
a single RHIB showed up with 30 on board, followed by another in
the evening with 38 aboard. If every one signs up for support,
that's £1,506 gone every week for healthy food, clothing and toiletries.
Plus, of course, rent or accommodation, NHS, etc.
Home office asses need to be got into gear fast.
davhill said:
PRTVR said:
By back do you mean the migrants ?
If so things are getting worse, the size of the boats have increased , they are shipping them across in larger inflatables that can hold more than 30 at a time, its just not been reported by the MSM.
Nigel Farage talking about the subject.
https://youtu.be/R0dKkzguhxE
Yep, I saw a Farage interview earlier. Yesterday morning,If so things are getting worse, the size of the boats have increased , they are shipping them across in larger inflatables that can hold more than 30 at a time, its just not been reported by the MSM.
Nigel Farage talking about the subject.
https://youtu.be/R0dKkzguhxE
a single RHIB showed up with 30 on board, followed by another in
the evening with 38 aboard. If every one signs up for support,
that's £1,506 gone every week for healthy food, clothing and toiletries.
Plus, of course, rent or accommodation, NHS, etc.
Home office asses need to be got into gear fast.
But you are right in some respects. The Home Office really do need to get their ass into gear.
Namely, to allow asylum seekers to claim at the UK's overseas Embassies and Consulates.
That would kill the business model of 'people traffickers' literally overnight.
Mobile Chicane said:
Oh do come off it. Asylum seekers get £5.66 a day - less than Income Support.
But you are right in some respects. The Home Office really do need to get their ass into gear.
Namely, to allow asylum seekers to claim at the UK's overseas Embassies and Consulates.
That would kill the business model of 'people traffickers' literally overnight.
I quote verbatim from the 'What you'll get' page under 'Asylum support' on Gov uk...But you are right in some respects. The Home Office really do need to get their ass into gear.
Namely, to allow asylum seekers to claim at the UK's overseas Embassies and Consulates.
That would kill the business model of 'people traffickers' literally overnight.
'Cash support
You’ll get £39.63 for each person in your household. This will help you pay for things you need like food, clothing and toiletries.
Your allowance will be loaded onto a debit card (ASPEN card) each week. You’ll be able to use the card to get cash from a cash machine.'
Source: https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get
Ok, I repeated what I heard N. Farage say...
30 arrived in the morning, 38 more showed up later.
30 + 38 = 68
68 x £39.63 = £2,694.84 Per week
Er... go figure
Outstandingly good point about claiming at the O/seas consulates or embassies.
Just needs qualifying with the word, 'only'.
SlimJim16v said:
Mobile Chicane said:
Namely, to allow asylum seekers to claim at the UK's overseas Embassies and Consulates.
That would kill the business model of 'people traffickers' literally overnight.
That would kill the business model of 'people traffickers' literally overnight.
Liokault said:
SlimJim16v said:
Mobile Chicane said:
Namely, to allow asylum seekers to claim at the UK's overseas Embassies and Consulates.
That would kill the business model of 'people traffickers' literally overnight.
That would kill the business model of 'people traffickers' literally overnight.
Mrr T said:
Liokault said:
SlimJim16v said:
Mobile Chicane said:
Namely, to allow asylum seekers to claim at the UK's overseas Embassies and Consulates.
That would kill the business model of 'people traffickers' literally overnight.
That would kill the business model of 'people traffickers' literally overnight.
We shouldn't accept any asylum seekers crossing the channel. They are coming from a safe country. The only debate is how to stop them coming and get them retuned either to France or their country of origin.
We should take asylum seekers but a number we choose and after being vetted at the camps or embassies. After all currently the entire population of a few countries could legitimately claim to fear persecution but we can't take them all. So we shouldn,t take queue jumping channel crossers.
We should take asylum seekers but a number we choose and after being vetted at the camps or embassies. After all currently the entire population of a few countries could legitimately claim to fear persecution but we can't take them all. So we shouldn,t take queue jumping channel crossers.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff