UK planning to send asylum seekers abroad to be processed

Home Office set to outline law change to allow asylum seekers to be sent to centres outside of Britain

Asylum seekers could be sent to processing centres abroad under the home secretary’s plans to overhaul the immigration system, according to reports.

The British overseas territory of Gibraltar is under consideration by officials, according to The Times, as well as the Isle of Man and other islands off the British coast.

Priti Patel has vowed to stop migrants making the perilous journey across the English Channel and is expected to publish details of plans overhauling the UK’s asylum and immigration system next week.

The Times said plans due to be set out by the home secretary will include a consultation on changing the law so that migrants seeking asylum can be sent to processing centres in third countries.

It follows a series of leaks last year suggesting the UK government was considering a number of offshore policies akin to those used in Australia.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/priti-patel-asylum-seekers-abroad-law-b1818814.html



Why not send all african asylum seekers back to the African Union to look after and all middle Eastern ones back to the Arab League to look after?


The asylum system is just a way for illegal immigrants to blah their way into the UK, and has been widely abused for at least 30 years now, and needs to be stopped!

Tommy Monk wrote:Why not send all african asylum seekers back to the African Union to look after and all middle Eastern ones back to the Arab League to look after?

That doesn't make a lot of sense, tommy. If they are seeking asylum, they apparently find something intolerable about their places of origin. What it is, and how bad it is, will be determined by a court of law.

But to send them right back into the jaws of the lion, defeats the whole purpose of asylum altogether. Or, are you saying that justice is a matter of your taste in neighbors, and not a matter of the injustice that caused them to flee? Would you, for example, not feel so strongly about a white immigrant from Norway?

Africa has plenty of safe countries that they could be placed in.


And we don't get white asylum seekers from Norway.

Tommy Monk wrote:Africa has plenty of safe countries that they could be placed in.

But they are asking you, the UK, for asylum, tom. Are you saying the UK shouldn't have any asylum program? That doesn't win you points for humanity, but at least it treats all applicants with equity.

Tommy Monk wrote:And we don't get white asylum seekers from Norway.

And do you know why? Isn't it because asylum seekers look to distance themselves from places with problems and pains? If you're against granting any grace...well, don't look to ask for any when your turn comes around.

The asylum system is abused by bogus applicants and terrorists who just use it to gain entry to our country.

So you want to eliminate it?

For bogus ppkicnts andd terrorists, yes...

Tommy Monk wrote:For bogus ppkicnts andd terrorists, yes...

How do you foretell the difference?

They could easily just go to numerous other places of safety in their local regions... But they travel through countless safe places before getting here and claiming they didn't have any safe places to go...


That smells of total bullshit to me... And everyone else knows it is bullshit too!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:They could easily just go to numerous other places of safety in their local regions... But they travel through countless safe places before getting here and claiming they didn't have any safe places to go...

That smells of total bullshit to me... And everyone else knows it is bullshit too!!!

So, you don't want any part of asylum for Britain?

Apparently if there's any place safe between your war-torn country and the UK, you must stop there.

So you can only seek asylum in the UK if you're from Ireland, France, Belgium or the Netherlands.

Ben Reilly wrote:Apparently if there's any place safe between your war-torn country and the UK, you must stop there.

So you can only seek asylum in the UK if you're from Ireland, France, Belgium or the Netherlands.

Unless the laws have changed post BREXIT, I always understood that refugees didn't have to stay in the first safe place they came too, they could move on and if they arrived here in the UK they could then claim asylum.

Syl wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Apparently if there's any place safe between your war-torn country and the UK, you must stop there.

So you can only seek asylum in the UK if you're from Ireland, France, Belgium or the Netherlands.

Unless the laws have changed post BREXIT, I always understood that refugees didn't have to stay in the first safe place they came too, they could move on and if they arrived here in the UK they could then claim asylum.

I don't think they should have to settle for the first safe place they come to, either, because seeking asylum is a form of voting with your feet, isn't it?

The issue facing an asylum seeker isn't simply where can they be safe, but where can they live life to the fullest, I would say. Why wouldn't someone who's forced to uproot his or her life give careful consideration to where they'd do best?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Syl wrote:

Unless the laws have changed post BREXIT, I always understood that refugees didn't have to stay in the first safe place they came too, they could move on and if they arrived here in the UK they could then claim asylum.

I don't think they should have to settle for the first safe place they come to, either, because seeking asylum is a form of voting with your feet, isn't it?

The issue facing an asylum seeker isn't simply where can they be safe, but where can they live life to the fullest, I would say. Why wouldn't someone who's forced to uproot his or her life give careful consideration to where they'd do best?

I dont think they should have to settle in the first safe country either.....and they dont.
I was disputing what you said....

'Apparently if there's any place safe between your war-torn country and the UK, you must stop there.
So you can only seek asylum in the UK if you're from Ireland, France, Belgium or the Netherlands. '

Tommy Monk wrote:



The asylum system is abused by bogus applicants and terrorists who just use it to gain entry to our country.

It’s abused by some. Not by all.
So what about the genuine ones?

It is abused by majority... If they are fleeing immediate danger... Then that fleeing immediate danger ends once they have arrived in a safe country... It is not a legitimate reason to travel illegally through numerous other safe countries to head to a destination of another country where they might think they would be better off economically.


Arriving here saying they were fleeing for their lives is bullshit after they have had numerous places of safety en route!


We all know it!


And we all know that most claiming asylum here are taking the piss!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:It is abused by majority... If they are fleeing immediate danger... Then that fleeing immediate danger ends once they have arrived in a safe country... It is not a legitimate reason to travel illegally through numerous other safe countries to head to a destination of another country where they might think they would be better off economically.

Arriving here saying they were fleeing for their lives is bullshit after they have had numerous places of safety en route!

We all know it!

And we all know that most claiming asylum here are taking the piss!!!

Who gets to say when they "have arrived in a safe country?" Another international tribunal? Or, yet another expensive office of the British Government?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Syl wrote:

Unless the laws have changed post BREXIT, I always understood that refugees didn't have to stay in the first safe place they came too, they could move on and if they arrived here in the UK they could then claim asylum.

I don't think they should have to settle for the first safe place they come to, either, because seeking asylum is a form of voting with your feet, isn't it?

The issue facing an asylum seeker isn't simply where can they be safe, but where can they live life to the fullest, I would say. Why wouldn't someone who's forced to uproot his or her life give careful consideration to where they'd do best?

They get into the UK on a dinghy. You can't get in to be with your wife.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Syl wrote:

Unless the laws have changed post BREXIT, I always understood that refugees didn't have to stay in the first safe place they came too, they could move on and if they arrived here in the UK they could then claim asylum.

I don't think they should have to settle for the first safe place they come to, either, because seeking asylum is a form of voting with your feet, isn't it?

The issue facing an asylum seeker isn't simply where can they be safe, but where can they live life to the fullest, I would say. Why wouldn't someone who's forced to uproot his or her life give careful consideration to where they'd do best?

I think you'll find a lot of them get here and are hugely disappointed. Not only do they not get a well paid job and a three bedroom house, it's shit weather too.

Overwhelming vast majority are already safe in their place of origin... They are just abusing the asylum system to bullshit their way into our country for their own personal gain.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:It is abused by majority... If they are fleeing immediate danger... Then that fleeing immediate danger ends once they have arrived in a safe country... It is not a legitimate reason to travel illegally through numerous other safe countries to head to a destination of another country where they might think they would be better off economically.

Arriving here saying they were fleeing for their lives is bullshit after they have had numerous places of safety en route!

We all know it!

And we all know that most claiming asylum here are taking the piss!!!

Who gets to say when they "have arrived in a safe country?"  Another international tribunal?  Or, yet another expensive office of the British Government?

Looks like half of Mexico is heading your way.

Tommy Monk wrote:Overwhelming vast majority are already safe in their place of origin... They are just abusing the asylum system to bullshit their way into our country for their own personal gain.

Who get to say?

All the other people are safe enough living there...

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Who gets to say when they "have arrived in a safe country?" Another international tribunal? Or, yet another expensive office of the British Government?

Looks like half of Mexico is heading your way.

I'm delighted. To the extent that they have Native American genes, they belong here more than we post-European gatecrashers.

Maybe, for parity, we could trade them for some Republican insurgents.

Tommy Monk wrote:All the other people are safe enough living there...

Maybe they're the ones with the guns.