4 ms·

Given that failed asylum seekers will almost never be deported, you are essentially arguing for unlimited migration here.

regularfry 4y ago
And you're arguing for zero, which is frankly ridiculous.
- Veen 4y ago
  No one is arguing for zero immigration. That's a fiction you've invented. I'm arguing for controlled legal immigration: i.e, the UK gets to decide who comes to live here. I was entirely supportive of the recent scheme for Ukrainians and the earlier BNO visa scheme for Hong Kong residents.
  - madaxe_again 4y ago
    On what basis have you earned the right to reside in the U.K.? Don’t say “I was born here” - you didn’t earn that. How would you fare on the points based visa scheme? Would you support an initiative to strip undesirable people (i.e. all those who have inadequate points) of their citizenship, so “better” people with more points can replace them?
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      Yes — a society should preference it’s own children over outsiders. That’s essential to its continued existence. You’re simply arguing that you have a right to loot UK families, destroying their society in the process, to give their money to people you feel are “more deserving”. I think that’s borderline genocidal.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        Funnily enough, that describes UK’s policy towards others for the past few hundred years.
  - tfgg 4y ago
    There's a responsibility under refugee conventions to take on people needing asylum. The conflation of them with illegal immigration is quite ridiculous. The UK is a rich country (~6th highest in the world), we should shoulder some of the (small) burden that we're asked to - many other, poorer, countries take on much higher refugee burdens.
- ballenf 4y ago
  As in not feasible or ridiculous as a matter of principle? Would it be ridiculous for any other country or is the UK specially situated?
dane-pgp 4y ago
> almost never Just to ground this discussion in some actual data, here are the figures from a 2019 news article[0]: "It shows how, of the 80,813 applications that were refused or withdrawn between 2010 and 2016, only 29,659 individuals were removed, leaving 51,154 failed asylum seekers in the country from that seven-year period." So it would be better to say that "only 37% of failed asylum seekers are deported". Also, I don't think that 51,154 people in seven years entering a country of 69 million really represents "unlimited migration". [0] https://news.sky.com/story/fewer-than-half-of-failed-asylum-seekers-are-removed-from-the-uk-study-says-11603672 https://news.sky.com/story/fewer-than-half-of-failed-asylum-...
- morelisp 4y ago
  What does it mean for an application to be "withdrawn"? If an asylum seeker gets a marriage/family/work visa and stops a now-unnecessary asylum process, is that a withdrawn application?
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    I suspect that "withdrawn" normally means the UK government has paid them to cancel their asylum request and leave the country (after which, admittedly, they might try again) but I don't have the figures to know how common that is.

regularfry 4y ago

And you're arguing for zero, which is frankly ridiculous.

Veen 4y ago
No one is arguing for zero immigration. That's a fiction you've invented. I'm arguing for controlled legal immigration: i.e, the UK gets to decide who comes to live here. I was entirely supportive of the recent scheme for Ukrainians and the earlier BNO visa scheme for Hong Kong residents.
- madaxe_again 4y ago
  On what basis have you earned the right to reside in the U.K.? Don’t say “I was born here” - you didn’t earn that. How would you fare on the points based visa scheme? Would you support an initiative to strip undesirable people (i.e. all those who have inadequate points) of their citizenship, so “better” people with more points can replace them?
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    Yes — a society should preference it’s own children over outsiders. That’s essential to its continued existence. You’re simply arguing that you have a right to loot UK families, destroying their society in the process, to give their money to people you feel are “more deserving”. I think that’s borderline genocidal.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      Funnily enough, that describes UK’s policy towards others for the past few hundred years.
- tfgg 4y ago
  There's a responsibility under refugee conventions to take on people needing asylum. The conflation of them with illegal immigration is quite ridiculous. The UK is a rich country (~6th highest in the world), we should shoulder some of the (small) burden that we're asked to - many other, poorer, countries take on much higher refugee burdens.
ballenf 4y ago
As in not feasible or ridiculous as a matter of principle? Would it be ridiculous for any other country or is the UK specially situated?

dane-pgp 4y ago

> almost never Just to ground this discussion in some actual data, here are the figures from a 2019 news article[0]: "It shows how, of the 80,813 applications that were refused or withdrawn between 2010 and 2016, only 29,659 individuals were removed, leaving 51,154 failed asylum seekers in the country from that seven-year period." So it would be better to say that "only 37% of failed asylum seekers are deported". Also, I don't think that 51,154 people in seven years entering a country of 69 million really represents "unlimited migration". [0] https://news.sky.com/story/fewer-than-half-of-failed-asylum-seekers-are-removed-from-the-uk-study-says-11603672 https://news.sky.com/story/fewer-than-half-of-failed-asylum-...

morelisp 4y ago
What does it mean for an application to be "withdrawn"? If an asylum seeker gets a marriage/family/work visa and stops a now-unnecessary asylum process, is that a withdrawn application?
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  I suspect that "withdrawn" normally means the UK government has paid them to cancel their asylum request and leave the country (after which, admittedly, they might try again) but I don't have the figures to know how common that is.