The majority of boat people who have been processed are given asylum, because they have access to effective legal representation to help prepare a good claim. The previous government put an end to that. Unfortunately, that deterrent has now been undone. Hence the rise in people crossing.
So you're saying you don't want people who are eligible for asylum to be given asylum by denying them effective legal representation?
The state determines who is eligible for asylum. It's always been that way. If the state says - if you pay people traffickers, and organised criminals lots of money to sent you on an unsafe vessel, you will not be eligible. Then that is fine by me. There are and have always been safe routes for genuine refugees to claim without them paying people traffickers.
What about the victims of the Pakistani grooming gangs?
You said that sending back women who suffered abuse in their country is not a good idea.
The law should deal with lawbreakers. I know you don't like the Labour government but equating the UK with the Taliban or ISIS, for example, is nonsense. Give your head a good shake...
You are obviously not aware that citizens of India have been granted asylum in the U.K. due to fear of abuse from family or the inability to access good medical care for the psychological fear.
Aaah, you're now talking about muslim organisations abusing women.
No. You are being silly again.
You're being unreasonable and unbalanced.
She doesn't.
