Home
Nonsense!
Have you properly understood the Law Society article?
They make 6 points.
This is what it says -
1 - The rules have been previously that if refugees have stopped in a safe country (ie France) on there way here - and their claims to stay in the UK are rejected, then they can be relocated to another safe country - but up to now no other safe country will take them.
Now Rwanda will.
The argument is that these 'failed' asylum seekers may not know anyone in Rwanda!
So what!
That's their issue not ours - they are failed asylum seekers here - legally they are not wanted in the UK and another safe country will take them on - where's the issue?
2 - If you arrive here legally you will have full protection, those who haven't and arrived via another safe country (ie France) won't get full protection.
Basically those who come legally will get indefinite leave to remain and benefits, those arriving illegally 'temporary' leave to remain and could be sent back to their own country once it becomes safe again and they will be denied benefits - just the same as what France does - thus removing their financial incentive to come here rather than stay in France.
Doesn't that seem fair?
3 - It lowers the threshold of serious crime. What that means is that if they've previously been in prison for two years we don't take them (that's what it was), it is now if they've been in prison for a year we don't take them.
Why would we want to?
Doesn't that seem reasonable?
4 - Stops fast track appeals. Before the legal 'do gooders' were waiting for the last possible moment (refugees on the plane being deported) to appeal - a clear abuse of the system.
This as now been stopped.
Seems fair doesn't it?
5 - Late submission of evidence penalised - very similar to point 4 above. - for the same reasons.
6 - Additional fines to solicitors - because there has been a history of abusing the system by solicitors - see points 4 and 5 - the courts have been granted additional powers to penalise such flagrant waste of court time.
What's bad about that?
As for this bit...
I refer you to these so called potential refugees that might have ended up here without the appropriate checks and balances...
Have you properly understood the Law Society article?
They make 6 points.
This is what it says -
1 - The rules have been previously that if refugees have stopped in a safe country (ie France) on there way here - and their claims to stay in the UK are rejected, then they can be relocated to another safe country - but up to now no other safe country will take them.
Now Rwanda will.
The argument is that these 'failed' asylum seekers may not know anyone in Rwanda!
So what!
That's their issue not ours - they are failed asylum seekers here - legally they are not wanted in the UK and another safe country will take them on - where's the issue?
2 - If you arrive here legally you will have full protection, those who haven't and arrived via another safe country (ie France) won't get full protection.
Basically those who come legally will get indefinite leave to remain and benefits, those arriving illegally 'temporary' leave to remain and could be sent back to their own country once it becomes safe again and they will be denied benefits - just the same as what France does - thus removing their financial incentive to come here rather than stay in France.
Doesn't that seem fair?
3 - It lowers the threshold of serious crime. What that means is that if they've previously been in prison for two years we don't take them (that's what it was), it is now if they've been in prison for a year we don't take them.
Why would we want to?
Doesn't that seem reasonable?
4 - Stops fast track appeals. Before the legal 'do gooders' were waiting for the last possible moment (refugees on the plane being deported) to appeal - a clear abuse of the system.
This as now been stopped.
Seems fair doesn't it?
5 - Late submission of evidence penalised - very similar to point 4 above. - for the same reasons.
6 - Additional fines to solicitors - because there has been a history of abusing the system by solicitors - see points 4 and 5 - the courts have been granted additional powers to penalise such flagrant waste of court time.
What's bad about that?
As for this bit...
wanderlust wrote:Basically if someone comes from a war zone, they have to prove that they were at risk in order to be allowed to stay here - and the reality is that if you are fleeing a war zone you tend to grab clothes and essentials and run rather than take photos of your family being murdered..
I refer you to these so called potential refugees that might have ended up here without the appropriate checks and balances...
wanderlust wrote:Whilst I was in Morocco, the missus and I were chatting to one of the hotel managers - a 30 something Moroccan guy who has worked around the world in the hotel industry and on the face of it seemed a lovely young man.
Anyway he mentioned that he'd worked in Kyiv and the missus piped up with how terrible it was there and how we wanted to offer accommodation for a refugee.
Next day the guy said he knew someone who was stuck there and could we help? A Ukranian woman he'd worked with in Kyiv and Doha.
Turns out to be the woman, her 3 yr old kid and her mother wanted to come.
The missus sprung into action setting up a Whatsapp group, and Facetime calls for the next few days. The woman and her kid were lovely, but on the 4th day the mother came online and after a while she said that the Moroccan guy wasn't just a work colleague. He'd knocked up her daughter, married her and then a week later she found out that he already had a wife and family back in Morocco - the guy was a bigamist.
Then it turns out that the mother is a Russian sympathiser and wants to live in Russia instead so the whole deal collapsed.
