Tent city

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Berlingogirl
    replied
    Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
    Were the two couples and baby illegal immigrants?
    I don't know. I only knew they were living there after they left. Letters did come for them and I forwarded them to another local address. They could have easily been illegal immigrants or they could have been legal. Letters also came for a further two people, but I think they were just using the address. Or, they could have been living there too but it would have been in one of the other couples' room.

    Leave a comment:


  • islandgirl
    replied
    Full fact once again - and a whole sixth of them in Germany - clearly a great system!

    : The EU has been setting up a Common European Asylum System for the last 20 years or so. From 2000 to 2005, the UK opted into a number of laws relating to this. These mainly involved how asylum seekers are treated and how their applications are processed, as well as laws setting out which EU country is responsible for processing an asylum seeker’s claim (the “Dublin system”). These measures are integrated into the UK’s asylum policies and procedures.

    But, since then a number of these laws have been altered and the UK has chosen not to sign up to these.

    The Dublin system has been seen by successive UK governments as greatly beneficial to the UK. The House of Commons Library says this is because the system tends to make countries which are closer to the EU’s external borders responsible for asylum claims.

    However, the ongoing ‘migration crisis’ in Europe has highlighted a number of problems within the Dublin system, and there is some doubt over its long-term future in its current form.

    The European Commission has identified a need for a permanent crisis relocation system to assist specific Member States in the event of extreme migration pressures. It is also considering additional changes to the rules for determining which Member State is responsible for an asylum claim. There has been some speculation that new proposals may impose more responsibilities on Member States without external EU borders than the current arrangements.

    New proposals are expected to be published by the European Commission for negotiation this spring. The UK government’s view on these proposals is that the principles underlying the existing Dublin regulation should be retained.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
    [That may be true on paper but not in reality. They were not sent back to the EU as far as I am aware. Let's not make this an anti Brexit thread shall we? We have already agreed to differ on that! Again from Full Fact
    If people were intercepted before they arrived in the UK, if it was possible to determine where they came from, they were simply returned to there (unless it wasn't safe).
    That's no longer possible without free movement.

    Then google the Dublin System or Dublin Regulations, which has an EU agreement that allowed EU members to request information from each other when someone claimed asylum, to see if they were really someone else's responsibility.

    The UK didn't make much use of the system, but that might be because the majority of asylum seekers to the UK didn't come from somewhere else in Europe first (no one seems to have that kind of stat I can find).

    For example in 2019, the home office made 3,258 requests of other EU nations to see if someone could be "exported there) and were successful in 267 cases.
    It was, perhaps unsurprisingly because the Home Office seems completely inept, much less successful than other nations (although they had more asylum seekers). Germany made about 48,000 enquiries and was successful in about a sixth of them.

    Absent that agreement (which ended when we left the EU - it doesn't really matter whether we agreed on Brexit or not, that's just a fact) and now there is no such mechanism.

    Leave a comment:


  • islandgirl
    replied
    Until Brexit, anyone caught trying to arrive by dinghy could simply be returned from the country they came from (assuming it was in the EU).
    That's no longer possible, so, it's now much easier to be able to claim asylum.


    That may be true on paper but not in reality. They were not sent back to the EU as far as I am aware. Let's not make this an anti Brexit thread shall we? We have already agreed to differ on that! Again from Full Fact

    Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK, Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.

    A lot depends here on how to interpret which country people are “coming directly from”. It could be argued, for instance, that as the people crossing the channel are coming directly from France—which is not the country they initially fled—they don’t have the right to claim asylum in the UK.

    However, in 1999 a UK judge ruled that “some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.” The judge specified that “any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere.

    This means people who enter the UK by illegal means can legitimately make a claim for asylum, even after passing through other “safe” countries, provided they do so directly after arriving.









    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by Berlingogirl View Post
    I think illegal immigration can affect the housing stock. My Romanian tenants rented a 3 bed (the 3rd bedroom being downstairs and could be the dining room or office) and stuffed it full of people ie another two couples and a baby. When I confronted them about it they denied anyone else was living there but they'd had friends over to stay. So it would be easy for a legitimate resident to rent a property larger than they need and fill it with illegal residents who can then work for cash - gardeners, plasterers etc.
    Were the two couples and baby illegal immigrants?

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Until Brexit, anyone caught trying to arrive by dinghy could simply be returned from the country they came from (assuming it was in the EU).
    That's no longer possible, so, it's now much easier to be able to claim asylum.

    But the number of people who come across the channel that way is tiny.
    Most asylum seekers travel here quite legitimately.
    And asylum seekers aren't illegal immigrants, because asylum seekers have a right to be here.

    I just don't see how an illegal immigrant could live somewhere that deprives someone else or contributes to a housing shortage (or affects a local authority in any way).

    As the population of the UK isn't growing naturally as people have fewer children, and is, at the same time, aging, we're going to need more not fewer immigrants, or accept a declining economy.

    Pre-covid, employment was at it's highest level for decades (probably about as high as it could ever be in percentage terms), so we have plenty of demand for more people - someone in charge just needs to realise that we need to match the incoming number of households with the corresponding number of places for them to live.

    Leave a comment:


  • Berlingogirl
    replied
    I think illegal immigration can affect the housing stock. My Romanian tenants rented a 3 bed (the 3rd bedroom being downstairs and could be the dining room or office) and stuffed it full of people ie another two couples and a baby. When I confronted them about it they denied anyone else was living there but they'd had friends over to stay. So it would be easy for a legitimate resident to rent a property larger than they need and fill it with illegal residents who can then work for cash - gardeners, plasterers etc.

    Edit: and then when a legal resident dies they can take over their identity. I know of a girl who died and family members and friends wanted to send one of their daughters over to take over her identity and so live legally in this country.

    Leave a comment:


  • islandgirl
    replied
    Yes I agree you did mean illegal immigration. However illegal immigrants who come here for example in dinghies to Dover then claim asylum become asylum seekers with access to housing I assume? And illlegal immigrants have to live somwhere! Yes they do not get housing benefit or universal credit or whatever it is called these days but they do potentially occupy a house....As for the going through other countries thing 32k did pass through safe countries I suppose! As you originally said it is not really the thread for this debate but it is interesting so apologies for continuing it!

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    islandgirl Thanks for the information.
    However, I didn't say that I can't see how immigration has an effect on housing stock, I said illegal immigration, which is a very different thing.

    I accept that immigration has an impact on housing - people have to live somewhere - but immigration is not the same as illegal immigration and conflating the two causes confusion.
    I still don't see how an illegal immigrant can have access to housing.

    And I'd have thought that pretty much by definition asylum seekers are the opposite of illegal immigrants, in that to seek asylum you have to bring yourself to the attention of the authorities and ask to stay.
    That typically happens at a border when they first arrive.
    As far as I can tell, asylum seekers have a legal right to be here while their status is assessed.

    And while checking this, I found that the claims* that people are passing through other EU countries to get to the UK because we're an easy touch, somewhat undone by the fact that many more people seek asylum in Germany (155k), France (129k) and Greece (81k) then the UK (32k).
    I appreciate the Greek figure is possibly affected by Geography.

    *Which was not a point made by islandgirl, but this seemed a sensible place to share!

    Leave a comment:


  • islandgirl
    replied
    Some interesting info from Full Fact:
    People who have requested asylum are able to get housing assistance while their asylum claim is being assessed if they are destitute. There were just under 32,000 asylum applications made in the year to March 2019. People in the UK illegally are not eligaible for government assistance with housing.
    and
    There are about 65 million people living in the UK right now.
    An estimated 333,000 ended up living here last year, thanks to a near record level of net migration into the UK.
    If immigrants live in the same size households as the rest of the population, with 2.4 in each household on average, then that means one new household every four minutes for last year. But we don't know a great deal about the actual size of recent immigrant households.

    It is therefore wrong to say that (whether you consider it a positive or negative thing or a mix of the two) that immigration has no impact on housing stock. Asylum seekers as you can see are eligable for housing whilst being assessed.

    Talking about this is the grown up and adult thing to do - and not racist!

    Leave a comment:


  • theartfullodger
    replied
    See Bede on the welcome provided by King Vortigern.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
    The problem is JP it is one of those things which is impossible to discuss anywhere. We cannot have a grown up conversation without someone being called "racist". Which is why nothing gets done about this issue which whatever your views about illegal immigration is putting intense pressure on local authorities and making the housing situation even worse.
    I don't see how illegal immigration is putting intense pressure on anyone.

    As far as I can tell, there are two groups of illegal immigrants, those the authorities know about and those they don't.
    The first group must be being detained somewhere by the home office and I can't see how the second could access anything from a local authority, let alone a house.

    An illegal immigrant might be living in a council house, but if they are, they must be living with someone entitled to a council house, so removing them isn't going to free up any housing stock.

    The only possible "benefit" an illegal immigrant might be able to access is the NHS as far as I can see.

    This isn't something I'd claim to be an expert on, so I'd be happy to be shown evidence that I'm wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon66 View Post
    Yes jpkeates this is probably not a good place to debate this, but when people perpetuate untruths they cannot and should not go unchallenged, because that's how Brexit happened.
    I sort of agree with that, but the problem is that it never makes any difference.

    People who have come to believe things that are not supported by facts in the first place are not going to be persuaded by being presented with facts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon66
    replied
    'Illegal immigrants' make little to no difference to the housing crisis. They are not housed by the LA and are under the radar, nor can they claim benefits.

    Those fleeing and seeking safety and refugee status do not claim benefits as you know them either. They are not 'given houses'. They are housed in hostels and immigration centres. They claim a subsistence allowance which is £39 per week. If their claim for refugee status is successful, and it's usually for limited leave to remain rather than indefinite, then they can claim benefits. A huge number are unsuccessful and are returned or remain in the UK under the radar, never being able to claim benefits.

    Yes jpkeates this is probably not a good place to debate this, but when people perpetuate untruths they cannot and should not go unchallenged, because that's how Brexit happened.

    Leave a comment:


  • islandgirl
    replied
    The problem is JP it is one of those things which is impossible to discuss anywhere. We cannot have a grown up conversation without someone being called "racist". Which is why nothing gets done about this issue which whatever your views about illegal immigration is putting intense pressure on local authorities and making the housing situation even worse.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X