This is great, we are getting more of them

Doesnt matter. The way the law works is that the importnat apsect is that they have fled their home country in fear of persecution and are unable to return.for fear of said persecution.

Its irrelevant as far as the asylum seeker is concerned how many countries they have passed through.

No, it isn't.

If I to flee the UK, I would head to France. If, for some reason, I couldn't go to France, I'd go to Spain or any of its adjacent countries.

I understand full well that Syrians and Iraqis cannot flee to Jordan or Israel, for obvious reasons, but most of the Western states are clear choices.

I expect it's because the UK hands free money out, but I may be wrong.

They're in France, they're no longer fleeing anything. If they were desperate, they'd have claimed refuge there.

No, it isn't.

If I to flee the UK, I would head to France. If, for some reason, I couldn't go to France, I'd go to Spain or any of its adjacent countries.

I understand full well that Syrians and Iraqis cannot flee to Jordan or Israel, for obvious reasons, but most of the Western states are clear choices.

I expect it's because the UK hands free money out, but I may be wrong.

I think those children that're are vulnerable should be allowed into the UK.

What I don't agree with however is letting all the migrants in. Europe isn't a supermarket to shop around in for the best deals and migrants which are older and capable should've settled in alternate countries that were in fact closer to where they were coming from.

I saw a brief interview on the news earlier of a middle aged man (Sudanese I believe) saying something along the lines of "...UK is the only hope for me..." - floccinaucinihilipilification as far as I'm concerned. They're obliged to apply for asylum in France as a result of the Dublin Regulation anyways.

So yes, let in child migrants that are genuinely vulnerable. There is no obligation for Britain to accept other migrants just because they want to.

Asylum seekers may request asylum in any country they choose.
Dublin are merely a set of administrative rules between EU countries that have been mostly abandoned. This is why the EU is seeking to impose quotas instead.

I think those children that're are vulnerable should be allowed into the UK.

What I don't agree with however is letting all the migrants in. Europe isn't a supermarket to shop around in for the best deals and migrants which are older and capable should've settled in alternate countries that were in fact closer to where they were coming from.

I saw a brief interview on the news earlier of a middle aged man (Sudanese I believe) saying something along the lines of "...UK is the only hope for me..." - floccinaucinihilipilification as far as I'm concerned. They're obliged to apply for asylum in France as a result of the Dublin Regulation anyways.

So yes, let in child migrants that are genuinely vulnerable. There is no obligation for Britain to accept other migrants just because they want to.

But why can child migrants not be housed in France or any of the other European countries they've passed through? The simple fact is when you travel that far you're not an asylum seeker.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Assuming these "child refugees" take £50,000 from the state in some form or another, in the grand scheme of things it would cost an individual tax payer no more than £0.15 per year for all 70 of them, yet these 70 have received so much media attention as if it was a distraction tactic...

£50,000 is a big underestimate.

Adult refugees cost £85,000. Children are totally supported (with even their university tuition fees paid, if they attend)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2016/sep/13/why-does-resettling-a-refugee-cost-17000-in-the-us-but-85000-in-britain

We can afford these obviously, but we really can't afford to take more than the 20,000 already committed to, who will cost billions.

Asylum seekers may request asylum in any country they choose.
Dublin are merely a set of administrative rules between EU countries that have been mostly abandoned. This is why the EU is seeking to impose quotas instead.

There is no obligation on the UK to accept economic migrants , but where a claim for asylum is made, then it has to be heard and protection given to those who who meet the criteria of being refugees. People who fail i.e economic migrants are deported. Asylum success rates run between 35-40%.

You are correct as to law, but that doesn't mean that this asylum system is working in practice.

How long is the current backlog for consideration of asylum applications?

And what percentage of failed asylum seekers are actually deported?

What does working in practice mean? What are he objective criteria?
Do you mean the administrative process or do you mean asylum law?
Complaining or dissing someone bceyase it doesnt work needs to be accimpanied by practical suggestions of the improvements needed, how its paid for and tic the knock on implications for other areas.

You can google the information on how long it takes and how many applications we are dealing with on the border agencies website.

By its nature any administrative system has a backlog because its an in depth process and it depends on the resources available.

The profule of unsuccessful asylum seekers and % deported are on the border agencies website I believe. have seen them before. Dpnt have the exact figure at hand. perhaps contact the border agencu or do an FOI requets or look on the ONS wensite for the relevant data.

"Working in practice" means that asylum applicants have their cases heard under due process of law, and in good time. And that if their cases unsuccessful they are deported.

This system completely broke down "in practice" in the early years of this century, and as evidence I point you to the backlog of cases (never correctly established in total AFAIK but numbering "several hundreds of thousands" prior to March 2007.

This backlog was referred to as follows in a judgement in the Court of Appeal by Davis LJ
(SH (Iran) and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1] EWCA Civil 1469 )

"The Legacy programme …..was set up [2] to deal with a vast backlog of cases that had by 2006 been identified. In respect of applications made prior to 5 March 2007 which had not been disposed of – several hundreds of thousands – responsibility for dealing with such cases was transferred to the Casework Resolution Directive (CRD). Many of those potentially within the programme were liable to removal, having previously exhausted their appeal rights. Many (although by no means all) sought thereafter to lodge fresh submissions and representations. By mid 2011 there were still over 100,000 cases remaining to be disposed of: albeit a very significant proportion of those related to cases here contact had been lost with the applicant or where there were other difficulties, causing such cases to be transferred into what was called the controlled archive were transferred for resolution to a new unit called the Case Assurance and Audit Unit (CAAU).”

What happened to those hundreds and thousands of cases between 2007 and 2011 when they came down to just over 100,000?

The system has become manageable (even though some cases still go back to 2007) but it only works "in practice" at all because there was a "de facto" amnesty for many many thousands of applicants in the early years of the century.

Not really getting why you are complaining to me? Complain to the government via your MP. They are the ones who can throw more resources at it.

.

Because I thought you were presenting the asylum system as some sort of well organised, legally efficient entity, with failed asylum seekers all getting deported.

Rather than it effectively being broken, with hundreds of thousands disappearing in the the ether, people waiting more than a decade for a judgement, and so on.

If you now recognise it isn't that is great. Hopefully others reading this thread will too.

You thought wrong. Think you are veering way off topic.