Brilliant forensic examination. And to think people complain about Trump and Vance, who at least seem to have rumbled the problem and are trying to fix it Stateside. Whereas here . . .
What is truly awful about it is that there are people in the world who are genuinely deserving of asylum and would make a contribution here. The system we have does nothing to allow us to distinguish them.
Which is why I’ve seen the argument made that the Channel migrants are actually the ones we should take in as they’ve shown the persistence and determination to reach Britain at considerable risk to themselves, unlike the hundreds of thousands of legal migrants, many of whom add little or nothing to our society or economy.
You have touched on the real issue here: there is no desire to control immigration at all. In fact the government (civil service) is very keen to increase it; and the politicians do as they are told.
"As of June 2024 there were 224,742 cases ‘in the system’"
And yet "In 2023, something like 84,000 asylum-seekers (not including Ukrainian refugees and family reunions, who took the number to just over 140,000) came to the country."
So it takes an average of three years to even decide an asylum application.
Taking this Adam guy as an example, he had been through Germany, France and Ireland - all "safe" countries - before coming to the UK. So his asylum application should clearly have been refused without further discussion and he should have been deported.
Here is the ghastly truth about this managerial State - it is not even competent. It is in fact staggeringly incompetent. In my view that is because in becoming unmoored from political control, the civil servants who run it are literally not accountable to anyone at all.
The politicians argue endlessly about principle, but the real issue is that they are not in control of the State. This is why Trump is right to simply go in and sack them by the thousand.
On the 'safe' countries point, you will not be surprised to learn that we are not allowed to deport asylum seekers on the basis they have been in other 'safe' countries first, owing to a legal decision. I've been meaning to write a post about that.
‘…refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…’ I look forward to your exposition on how a judge has parsed the above, which reads pretty clearly to me, into the UK must grant asylum to those who did not come directly. Norway rejects anyone who comes over their land borders and claims asylum, apart over their Russian border, out of hand. They are not a pariah state in breach of international law for doing so. Then again, how long before a grenade tossing ‘enrichment’ fleeing prosecution in Sweden challenges their out of hand asylum dismissal in a Norwegian court?
Wise thoughts, young man, Your "proviso that non-citizens ... not entitled to welfare” is the key. When it comes to welfare, our elite is very pleased, even proud, of their power to distinguish between various classes of person. They do so by sex, age, how rich people are, how sick, how clever, and in terms of exactly how they get their money and hold their assets. So much so, they undermine the very meaning of “their”. And yes, they also distinguish citizen from non-citizen; in fact they favour the foreigner. They send welfare to Africa. For years the non-domiciled got generous tax treatment, and today it seems easier for immigrants to get council houses. Every city council estate is a testament the huge transfer of real wealth - land and housing - to immigrants who won’t be paying the full quid for it. The British worker is rightly pissed off; after his employer closed due to cheap goofs from China, he now finds his children being housing-queue-jumped by people from abroad. The soft-left internationalists who run the West, and who live protected loves, think migration as a legal or moral issue, not economic. As a result immigration policy is, everywhere, is based on a category error.
Brilliant forensic examination. And to think people complain about Trump and Vance, who at least seem to have rumbled the problem and are trying to fix it Stateside. Whereas here . . .
What is truly awful about it is that there are people in the world who are genuinely deserving of asylum and would make a contribution here. The system we have does nothing to allow us to distinguish them.
Which is why I’ve seen the argument made that the Channel migrants are actually the ones we should take in as they’ve shown the persistence and determination to reach Britain at considerable risk to themselves, unlike the hundreds of thousands of legal migrants, many of whom add little or nothing to our society or economy.
You have touched on the real issue here: there is no desire to control immigration at all. In fact the government (civil service) is very keen to increase it; and the politicians do as they are told.
Bravo, David!
Those statistics are also appalling.
"As of June 2024 there were 224,742 cases ‘in the system’"
And yet "In 2023, something like 84,000 asylum-seekers (not including Ukrainian refugees and family reunions, who took the number to just over 140,000) came to the country."
So it takes an average of three years to even decide an asylum application.
Taking this Adam guy as an example, he had been through Germany, France and Ireland - all "safe" countries - before coming to the UK. So his asylum application should clearly have been refused without further discussion and he should have been deported.
Here is the ghastly truth about this managerial State - it is not even competent. It is in fact staggeringly incompetent. In my view that is because in becoming unmoored from political control, the civil servants who run it are literally not accountable to anyone at all.
The politicians argue endlessly about principle, but the real issue is that they are not in control of the State. This is why Trump is right to simply go in and sack them by the thousand.
On the 'safe' countries point, you will not be surprised to learn that we are not allowed to deport asylum seekers on the basis they have been in other 'safe' countries first, owing to a legal decision. I've been meaning to write a post about that.
‘…refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…’ I look forward to your exposition on how a judge has parsed the above, which reads pretty clearly to me, into the UK must grant asylum to those who did not come directly. Norway rejects anyone who comes over their land borders and claims asylum, apart over their Russian border, out of hand. They are not a pariah state in breach of international law for doing so. Then again, how long before a grenade tossing ‘enrichment’ fleeing prosecution in Sweden challenges their out of hand asylum dismissal in a Norwegian court?
It reads pretty clearly to me too but the Home Office in the case in question never really put up a robust argument - a common occurrence.
Wise thoughts, young man, Your "proviso that non-citizens ... not entitled to welfare” is the key. When it comes to welfare, our elite is very pleased, even proud, of their power to distinguish between various classes of person. They do so by sex, age, how rich people are, how sick, how clever, and in terms of exactly how they get their money and hold their assets. So much so, they undermine the very meaning of “their”. And yes, they also distinguish citizen from non-citizen; in fact they favour the foreigner. They send welfare to Africa. For years the non-domiciled got generous tax treatment, and today it seems easier for immigrants to get council houses. Every city council estate is a testament the huge transfer of real wealth - land and housing - to immigrants who won’t be paying the full quid for it. The British worker is rightly pissed off; after his employer closed due to cheap goofs from China, he now finds his children being housing-queue-jumped by people from abroad. The soft-left internationalists who run the West, and who live protected loves, think migration as a legal or moral issue, not economic. As a result immigration policy is, everywhere, is based on a category error.