The Red Wall

[ellal]

An asylum seeker (or, "person seeking asylum") is someone who arrives in a country and asks for asylum.
Seeking asylum is a process.
This is everyone's right to do.


A refugee is someone who, in the judgement of the "receiving" country:
- has a well-founded fear of persecution, and
- is outside the country from where that fear might be realised, and
- owing to that fear, is unwilling to seek the protection of that country.


So, someone is seeking asylum until granted refugee status.
Like a child is a child, until they reach adulthood.

Could you tell us if there is any legal way for a refugee/asylum seeker to get to the UK and claim that status in the UK?

 

[Brigadier]

Could you tell us if there is any legal way for a refugee/asylum seeker to get to the UK and claim that status in the UK?

I was replying to the question of definitions but, as you ask, no: I could not.

 

[ellal]

I was replying to the question of definitions but, as you ask, no: I could not.

Well I'll make it easy for you...

There are no legal ways for a refugee/asylum seeker to get to the UK and claim that status...

Does that make you proud of the UK?

 

[Brigadier]

There are no legal ways for a refugee/asylum seeker to get to the UK and claim that status...

AFAII, you can't claim refugee status (according to my reading of Refugee Action).

Does that make you proud of the UK?

I'll answer your question, if you'll simply answer a simple one of mine.
Fair enough?

 

[ellal]

I'll answer your question, if you'll simply answer a simple one of mine.
Fair enough?

You answer and then post your question...

And if it concerns whether I'm proud of the UK as regards reneging on it's obligations to refugees/asylum seekers then no!

 

[Brigadier]

You answer and then post your question...

And if it concerns whether I'm proud of the UK as regards reneging on it's obligations to refugees/asylum seekers then no!

No, I'm not proud.

OK, how many people seeking asylum, p.a., would you agree with the UK hearing claims from?

 

[ellal]

No, I'm not proud.

OK, how many people seeking asylum, p.a., would you agree with the UK hearing claims from?

You hear all of the claims and come up with a fair and prompt decision based on the individual merits of each claim.

Simples.

If the situation were reversed would you not expect the same?

The current policy is two fold.

1. Political - So that the government hopes to hold on to the votes of the part of the electorate who have xenophobic/racist views. Classic 'divide and rule' tactics.

2. Economic - To siphon off as much public money as possible to private companies run by their mates who trade in human misery!

 

[JP_]

This is all getting silly. There are several definitions of the same word, so people will naturally use the definition that best suits their beliefs and agenda. Which is silly.

But, most definitions describe the refugee as their situation and conditions of origin country.
Fewer, or maybe only one, describe it solely as a status given to a person from the country they end up in.

Most of the world agree with the first definition, as do I.

Sorry to be so unhelpful.

 

[Brigadier]

Fewer, or maybe only one, describe it solely as a status given to a person from the country they end up in

Straight from Refugee Action website, which I cited.
Which is why I posted it.

 

[Brigadier]

You hear all of the claims and come up with a fair and prompt decision based on the individual merits of each claim.

Simples.

I agree.

Because the thing is, even if the most reasonable policy has a figure of, say, 250000, by definition the 250001 is rejected (regardless of merit).

I happen to believe that all of the "we're full! " and "we can't feed our own! " "arguments" are misguided at best, and disguised xenophobia after that.
UK has plenty of money; Tories just pocket it while their faithful lap up their bull, and Labour are frankly rubbish at the PR game (that they can't manage the economy).

Apologies for off-the-cuff response, but just got in from 2.5k swim, and trying to cook tea.

 

[Odds]

I agree.

Because the thing is, even if the most reasonable policy has a figure of, say, 250000, by definition the 250001 is rejected (regardless of merit).

I happen to believe that all of the "we're full! " and "we can't feed our own! " "arguments" are misguided at best, and disguised xenophobia after that.
UK has plenty of money; Tories just pocket it while their faithful lap up their bull, and Labour are frankly rubbish at the PR game (that they can't manage the economy).

Apologies for off-the-cuff response, but just got in from 2.5k swim, and trying to cook tea.

If the number of migrants accepted by the H/O is limited to 20,000 and there's up to 200,000 applications each year then your chances of getting accepted aren't that great, are they - perhaps you could offer to have a migrant cook for you: more time in the water, yes?