International News Immigration

Sheik djibouti said:
Hmmmm....who to believe, Rishi and the Tories, or the UN high commissioner for refugees....you decide!

www.bbc.co.uk

Stop the boats policy a 'fake response' to migration issues - UN

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees warns migrants are "easy targets" ahead of upcoming elections.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

"Speaking from Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine, Mr Grandi also expressed his concerns over the UK government's Rwanda asylum scheme."


That will be the same Ukraine from where we have received, as of 9 May 2023, a total of 289,400 LEGAL applications, with 228,300 LEGAL visas issued so far?

Just for clarity as these people applied for, and received, refuge and support through LEGAL channels?

Those same LEGAL channels that are "unwelcoming or too difficult" for the ILLEGAL arrivals?
 
Essexyellows said:
"Speaking from Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine, Mr Grandi also expressed his concerns over the UK government's Rwanda asylum scheme."


That will be the same Ukraine from where we have received, as of 9 May 2023, a total of 289,400 LEGAL applications, with 228,300 LEGAL visas issued so far?

Just for clarity as these people applied for, and received, refuge and support through LEGAL channels?

Those same LEGAL channels that are "unwelcoming or too difficult" for the ILLEGAL arrivals?
Click to expand...

That LEGAL channel is a SPECIFIC scheme for Ukrainians as there is a SPECIFIC scheme for Hong Kongers.

These schemes do not relate to other people fleeing persecution or conflict zones elsewhere. Even Tory MPs have flagged up problems with very limited number of safe/legal channels.

On the limited occasion when there is supposed to be a safe/legal route there are problems. The most sad/laughable example I've seen being Afghan citizens* having to get evidence from Taliban controlled services who they are actually in hiding from as they helped us or others in the coalition in the war against the Taliban.
 
Marked Ox said:
That LEGAL channel is a SPECIFIC scheme for Ukrainians as there is a SPECIFIC scheme for Hong Kongers.

These schemes do not relate to other people fleeing persecution or conflict zones elsewhere. Even Tory MPs have flagged up problems with very limited number of safe/legal channels.

On the limited occasion when there is supposed to be a safe/legal route there are problems. The most sad/laughable example I've seen being Afghan citizens* having to get evidence from Taliban controlled services who they are actually in hiding from as they helped us or others in the coalition in the war against the Taliban.
Click to expand...
But the alternative is to just let anyone in without the necessary evidence, which would just be silly.

Interestingly, two of the highest nationalities detected in those arriving on boats was Albanian and Iranian - neither of which are conflict zones. Turkey is also a notable source of illegal immigration. Why should there be 'safe routes' from any of these countries...?

www.gov.uk

Irregular migration to the UK, year ending September 2023

www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
 
MustardYellow said:
But the alternative is to just let anyone in without the necessary evidence, which would just be silly.

Interestingly, two of the highest nationalities detected in those arriving on boats was Albanian and Iranian - neither of which are conflict zones. Turkey is also a notable source of illegal immigration. Why should there be 'safe routes' from any of these countries...?

www.gov.uk

Irregular migration to the UK, year ending September 2023

www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
Click to expand...
You don't have to live in a conflict zone to suffer from persecution. In Iran, you just need to be a woman to have your civil rights suspended
 
bashamwonderland said:
And yet 80% of boat arrivals are men with enough money to pay the human traffickers for illegal transit across Europe.

I feel like we're not getting many of the vulnerable ones.
Click to expand...
Yet a good deal of them, once processed , are deemed to be vulnerable and worthy of asylum .
 
MustardYellow said:
But the alternative is to just let anyone in without the necessary evidence, which would just be silly.

Interestingly, two of the highest nationalities detected in those arriving on boats was Albanian and Iranian - neither of which are conflict zones. Turkey is also a notable source of illegal immigration. Why should there be 'safe routes' from any of these countries...?

www.gov.uk

Irregular migration to the UK, year ending September 2023

www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
Click to expand...


The Iranian government oppresses the population - there are very good reasons to leave if you can. The people leaving Iran are the academics, the journalists, politically active, scientists, doctors... Mustardyellow, you seem to have very little or no knowledge of life in Iran.

Iran has the world's highest number of citizen executions per capita, with an average of three killings per day, mostly due to political activity/resistance of oppression. Many are arrested by the authorities, not just for opposing the forced wearing of head-scarfs by women or having a drink of beer. People are taken from the street, held in solitary confinement and physically tortured.

It's great to have an opinion, but those who express their opinions without knowing anything on the subject makes themselves appear rather ignorant.
 
Ian said:
The Iranian government oppresses the population - there are very good reasons to leave if you can. The people leaving Iran are the academics, the journalists, politically active, scientists, doctors... Mustardyellow, you seem to have very little or no knowledge of life in Iran.

Iran has the world's highest number of citizen executions per capita, with an average of three killings per day, mostly due to political activity/resistance of oppression. Many are arrested by the authorities, not just for opposing the forced wearing of head-scarfs by women or having a drink of beer. People are taken from the street, held in solitary confinement and physically tortured.

It's great to have an opinion, but those who express their opinions without knowing anything on the subject makes themselves appear rather ignorant.
Click to expand...
The US has state executions... should we start accepting them as refugees too? There are laws in Iran and the population are expected to live in accordance to those laws.

I'm still unsure what this has to do with us? You seem to have a 'white saviour' attitude.
 
Essexyellows said:
Just because we don`t like other countries laws or culture doesn`t mean their population don`t.

Too many times we apply Western values to countries, like Iran et al, that we do not understand.
Click to expand...
A lot of the laws in these countries are based on religious teachings/beliefs, or interpretations of them. I have a connection to the UAE due to family, and it's similar there - many of the laws are based on Islamic teachings/beliefs (albeit not as strict).

I'm sure many of those in this thread telling me how awful these laws are would fully expect me to respect them when I'm there, thus to not 'disrespect their culture'. I also imagine if I was arrested/punished due to breaking one of these laws, many would believe I deserved it for not respecting their laws/culture.

But suddenly it's our problem when locals break the law and decide to run from it? Hmmm.
 
Depends whether you think killing people for having an opposing view to you can be justified in any circumstance I guess.

Last time I looked, the US wasn't killing people for opposing the government.

Russia on the other hand just lock them up and slowly poison them like they're doing with Navalny, so I guess it's like a drawn out death sentence really.

Do you value free speech and the fundamental Human Right to it? If so, why tolerate it anywhere, rather than shrug shoulders and say "not our problem, doesn't affect us".

Can't see there's anything particularly "white saviour" about protecting human life🤷‍♂️
 
Sheik djibouti said:
Depends whether you think killing people for having an opposing view to you can be justified in any circumstance I guess.

Last time I looked, the US wasn't killing people for opposing the government.

Russia on the other hand just lock them up and slowly poison them like they're doing with Navalny, so I guess it's like a drawn out death sentence really.

Do you value free speech and the fundamental Human Right to it? If so, why tolerate it anywhere, rather than shrug shoulders and say "not our problem, doesn't affect us".

Can't see there's anything particularly "white saviour" about protecting human life🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
I don't agree with them, but there are lots of things in the world I don't agree with - that doesn't make them all my problems to fix.
 
MustardYellow said:
I don't agree with them, but there are lots of things in the world I don't agree with - that doesn't make them all my problems to fix.
Click to expand...

But we're not talking about fixing those problems, are we?

We're talking about what we should do if an Iranian turns up in Britain and says that they're being persecuted by the Iranian state for being gay/Christian/a women/etc. etc. and asking for asylum.

And the argument is that we know enough about the Iranian regime to say that there may very well be some truth in those claims, and therefore the asylum application needs to be taken seriously and processed and considered in good faith.

To instead put that person on a plane back to Tehran, saying 'Nope, sorry - have you tried not being gay/Christian/a women/etc. etc. to fit in with your rules?' is not exactly humane.....and is also contrary to international law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom