r/AskBrits • u/Upper-Requirement987 • 14h ago
Do people really not understand the difference between Asylum Seekers and Illegal Immigrants?
It seems common that people say illegal immigrants, when really they mean Asylum Seeker.
Calling people who are housed in hotels and arrived in boats Asylum Seekers would ruin their argument, but I want to know if people who say this genuinely don't understand the distinction, or whether they are just willfully ignorant.
194
u/olig1905 14h ago
For a thread about whether people understand asylum, there’s an impressive amount of confidence from people inventing the rules.
“They’re all economic migrants.” Oxford’s Migration Observatory reports that 62% of substantive initial decisions on small-boat asylum applications between 2018 and 2025 granted protection. That excludes withdrawals and administrative decisions. You can criticise the assessment process, but declaring everyone fraudulent without examining their case is just substituting your prejudices for evidence.
“They should apply before coming.” There is no UK asylum visa, and you cannot lodge a UK asylum claim from abroad. Demanding people follow a procedure that doesn’t exist isn’t defending the system. It’s demonstrating that you haven’t bothered to understand it.
“They came through France.” The Refugee Convention does not require claiming in the first safe country. The UK does have separate rules allowing some claims to be treated as inadmissible because of connections to safe countries. That is not proof that someone’s persecution is imaginary.
“Their country isn’t at war.” War is not a requirement. Persecution because of religion, political opinion or sexuality can qualify. A government can imprison or torture you without declaring a war first.
And yes, entry can be illegal while an asylum claim is valid. These are different questions. Neither “every crossing is legal” nor “every boat passenger is a bogus refugee” is an accurate account of the law.
Several people here have eventually admitted “I don’t care, I don’t want either.” Fine, at least that’s honest. But stop dressing “I don’t want them here” up as legal expertise. A GB News subscription isn’t a law degree.
11
u/InternationalBad625 9h ago edited 8h ago
". The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence." - Article 31 of the 1951 Convention
The actual legal documents are generally vague and open to interpretation. What pro-immigration people present as the objective interpretation of the law is often a self-serving subjective interpretation. The same place which says that illegal entry can't be used to negate claims explicitly states it applies only when "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened". Which at least in that part of the document would be pretty clear people coming illegally from France are not valid asylum seekers.
I don't think the germane question is what a treaty originally meant in 1951, but if that is where you want to make the argument it is much less clear than left wing people pretend. Another example is in what constitutes a threat - the original treaty does not list (and frankly did not at all intend) to include persecution for homosexuality. There is no legal obligation within the original documents to considers those types of cases - it is a choice of interpretation. But there is a strong tendency among the pro immigration crowd to pretend otherwise, to pretend that the current status quo interpretation is the only legal option.
"War is not a requirement. Persecution because of religion, political opinion or sexuality can qualify." It can, but these details are not explicitly laid out within the bounds of the original treaty and is purely a modern choice one way or the other. As I mentioned before obviously a treaty from 1951 would not have been intended to cover homosexuality - this is a year before the UK government chemically castrated Turing.
5
u/AWhiteBox 8h ago
I love reading a point that's counter to my opinion, that is a genuine point made in good faith.
It's also really well written.
Thank you, food for thought.
2
u/Ran0702 5h ago edited 5h ago
Which at least in that part of the document would he pretty clear people coming illegally from France are not valid asylum seekers.
There is some nuance to this that many don't talk about or consider. It's long been known that some smuggling/trafficking gangs frequently exploit those they're trafficking to the UK in various ways. Debt bondage, blackmail, violence, torture, rape, forced labour etc. are all known to take place along the smuggling routes. Of course that's not to say it's true for every single asylum seeker, but it's not uncommon.
Some business models (for lack of a better term) have 'recruiters' target people seeking a better life in impoverished parts of already poor countries, and promise passage to the UK/Europe in exchange for sums of money most could never afford. From there they're entered into debt bondage, passports and documents are taken from them, and they're forced into whatever the traffickers demand. It's not uncommon that many end up forced to work in criminal enterprises like the production of illicit substances etc on their way across Europe. By the time they reach Calais, crossing into the UK is the only way to escape. (Although even then, it's not a guarantee - some are picked up again by the same gangs inside the UK once they're registered as asylum seekers and the cycle continues)
There's little data on how prevalent this type of exploitation is, and it's true that many of the gangs who operate do simply sell transport across the channel and nothing more, but what govt data does show is, 20% of all small boat arrivals since 2018 have been have been referred under the NRM as victims of modern slavery, and of those, more than half were found to have reasonable or conclusive grounds.
It's food for thought.
→ More replies (6)54
u/Puzzleheaded_Ad_7414 13h ago
“A GB News subscription is not a law degree”. I’m using that! 😀😀
→ More replies (1)42
u/Shumble91 14h ago
👏 nicely articulated!
Also add that we had a pretty good system with France under the Dublin agreement. That was torn up in Johnson's haste to get Brexit done at all cost
16
u/Frosty_Customer_9243 13h ago
France had even proposed to build an asylum processing centre for use by the British in Calais.
35
u/UpsetKoalaBear 13h ago
Someone will reply with some nonsense about “uh, the stats say we didn’t return that many” without understanding that it acted like a deterrent because they would have been denied instantly.
Now any asylum applications that fail in Europe get a second chance if they can make it to the UK.
An option that didn’t exist before and thus they had no reason to come here.
→ More replies (2)10
u/Northwindlowlander 12h ago
It is sort of fascinating that they understand deterrant when it's something they want to do but don't believe in it when it's something they prevented from happening
→ More replies (1)5
u/Northwindlowlander 12h ago
And on top of that the asylum system used to be far more efficient but was systematically destroyed under Theresa May, creating the huge backlog that we have now and slowing pretty much every application. The backlog is finally falling but a quarter of all applicants still wait over a year for their initial decision.
12
u/Frosty_Customer_9243 13h ago
Might be worth mentioning that entry can be illegal but it is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
20
u/Few_Net_5662 12h ago
No the nationality and borders act 2022 made it a criminal offence up to 4 years in prison. It’s an offence under Section 24 immigration act 1971
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)6
13
u/Appropriate_Car_3711 11h ago
This post makes some valid points about asylum law, but then uses them to shut down a much wider debate about immigration policy. Knowing what the law says is important. Pretending that the law settles every question about how the system should operate is not the same thing as having a complete argument.
“They’re all economic migrants.”
Nobody can reasonably claim that every person arriving by small boat is an economic migrant. But the fact that 62% of substantive initial decisions resulted in protection being granted does not prove that every applicant has a genuine claim, either. The figure tells us about cases that received substantive decisions, not every person who arrived. It excludes withdrawals and administrative outcomes, and it does not establish the merits of cases that remain undecided. The Home Office also records substantial differences in grant rates between nationalities. The sensible conclusion is that claims must be assessed individually, not that one statistic settles the entire debate.
“They should apply before coming.”
It is true that there is no general UK asylum visa allowing someone to travel here simply to make an asylum claim, and that an ordinary asylum application cannot be submitted from overseas. But pointing out that limitation does not make it unreasonable to ask why safe, orderly routes are so limited, whether more could be established, or how the government should discourage dangerous crossings. The absence of a particular legal route is a policy problem to debate, not an answer to every question about border control.
“They came through France.”
The Refugee Convention does not impose a blanket obligation to claim asylum in the first safe country someone reaches. Equally, that does not mean the route taken is irrelevant to every legal decision. UK law provides for certain claims to be treated as inadmissible where there is a relevant connection to a safe third country, subject to the applicable legal requirements. Whether those rules can actually be implemented effectively is a legitimate question. So is whether the UK should negotiate workable arrangements with other countries. Neither question requires us to pretend that every person who passes through France has a fraudulent claim.
“Their country isn’t at war.”
Correct: a country does not need to be at war for someone to qualify for refugee protection. But the reverse is also true: coming from a troubled country does not automatically entitle someone to asylum. The individual must satisfy the relevant legal criteria, including the applicable definition of a refugee or another basis for protection. Country conditions matter, but so do individual circumstances and the evidence.
“Entry can be illegal while an asylum claim is valid.”
Yes. But acknowledging that distinction should not end the discussion about irregular entry. The right to seek protection, the merits of an asylum claim, the legality of a particular crossing and the government's ability to enforce immigration law are separate issues. They must be considered under the relevant legal rules, rather than collapsed into one simplistic argument.
And that is where you post misses the wider point.
People can accept that genuine refugees deserve protection while still questioning the scale and management of irregular migration, the effectiveness of removals following failed claims, the role of people-smuggling gangs, the fairness of the system to those waiting in official resettlement schemes, and the costs and consequences of a system that struggles to deliver timely decisions.
Those concerns do not automatically make someone prejudiced, ignorant or hostile to refugees. Equally, they do not justify labelling everyone arriving by boat an economic migrant.
The same standard of evidence should apply to both sides. If someone claims every arrival is fraudulent, they need evidence. If someone implies that a high grant rate proves the entire system is working properly, they need evidence for that too.
And dismissing people with a reference to their news subscription instead of addressing their arguments is no substitute for a reasoned response.
The real debate is not whether genuine refugees deserve protection. They do. It is how we protect those who genuinely need it while maintaining a credible, fair and enforceable immigration system. Those objectives are not mutually exclusive, and pretending that anyone who questions the latter must oppose the former does nothing to solve the problem.
Also, your jibe about GB news is beneath you, or maybe it isn't.
3
u/InternationalBad625 8h ago
"Article 31 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees provides as follows: 1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who**, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened** in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."
"Good cause" is entirely subjective - meaning whether people crossing by boat from France are valid or not is also not a question of the original legal phrasing but of modern interpretation. Obviously people opposed to it would say they do NOT have "good cause" and are NOT "coming directly from a their life or freedom was threatened". In which case their claims would not have to be considered under the 1951 convention.
These types of legal questions eventually come down to subjective judgements. The original documents are vague and their interpretation has (very obviously) changed over time. The left is presenting it's subjective judgements as originalist legal interpretations as a charade because they don't want to make an actual argument on merits.
7
2
→ More replies (1)2
14
u/lithiumcentury 11h ago
There are 50 million people in Africa and West Asia that are gay and living in regimes that would kill or imprison them just for that. Should we have them all here? Widening out to South Asia, there are 1-2billion women living under threat of acid attacks, honour beatings or sentenced to gang rape for behaviour that is accepted in the men of those regions. Should we have them all here? Or might it not be a better idea to try to help people where they are, sensibly using the foreign aid budget?
→ More replies (3)7
u/Few_Net_5662 11h ago
They can travel from France and claim asylum. However, the Home Office can refuse the asylum claim on those grounds alone and make arrangements to remove them back to France. Their persecution is evidence based and the obligation is on them to prove it. Travelling from France is highly relevant.
People entering the UK via small boats commit the criminal offence of ‘Entry without Valid Entry Clearance Section 24 Immigration Act 1971’ (max sentence 4 years). The one’s piloting boat commit the offence of Section 25 Immigration Act 1971 ‘Facilitation of Illegal Entry’ (max sentence 14 years). This has been a criminal offence since Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
Genuine asylum seekers are a tiny minority of these arrivals. Small boat arrivals are facilitated by organised crime that is more lucrative than drug trafficking. These people arriving are often in debt to people in UK to pay for their journey here and engage in illegal working and other criminality to pay the debt. The asylum system is fully exploited by organised crime.
→ More replies (7)2
u/Jdm_1878 8h ago
Those things aren't mutually exclusive though and then you're just throwing in some random conclusion to your argument off the back of that
→ More replies (40)3
u/KeremyJyles 12h ago
You can criticise the assessment process, but declaring everyone fraudulent without examining their case is just substituting your prejudices for evidence.
If they cross the channel to get here, they are fraudulent and economic migrants. They had many chances before here to seek safety, if that were their only concern.
→ More replies (7)
61
u/No-Snow-9605 13h ago edited 12h ago
My argument is simple, when did any of you last go on holiday to a country outside the UK without a passport? Never. You need a passport to leave. You also need one to enter the country you are going to, and ofcourse the same on the way home.
The migrants on the dinghy throw their passports into the sea before they get here. WHY?
19
u/Kind-Mathematician18 11h ago
Simple, if you don't know where they came from, where do you deport them to? UK simply cannot deport people, international treaties forbid making anyone stateless. One massive advantage of the Rwanda scheme was they could be housed there, awaiting processing, with the stipulation they must have a passport to be granted asylum. That puts the ball in their court, show passport, get asylum.
It's a piss take
15
u/Affectionate-Let6153 11h ago
There is no international organisation that can stop The UK if it decides to deport illegals. The UK chooses to not deport.
→ More replies (14)32
u/airman8472 13h ago
They're not asylum seekers if they cross fifteen very safe countries, just to get to the united kingdom. At that point they're illegal immigrants. The law might see otherwise, but the law needs to catch up with reality.
→ More replies (19)3
u/ObligationOk633 9h ago
Which was literally the Dublin regulation.
The one we chose to walk out of, but then the same people who wanted out of it, cite it as if ‘claim in the first safe country’ was the international law of asylum.
I think it’s a sane principle, but it’s meaningless without an actual international law to back it up. Outside of maths and physics, there is no such thing as ‘illegal in reality’ rather than than law, and you can’t have international law without accepting there can be a higher authority to decide it.
Which we won’t do, hence the mess we are in where people who have failed asylum claims in Europe can have another go in the U.K.
3
u/Intelligent_Court396 8h ago
We would have had to take a quota of asylum seekers if we were in the eu, not via boats but a different means...
Like Poland refuse to but pay a fine instead. We would have just taken them... no better
→ More replies (37)3
u/ObligationOk633 9h ago
Because they want to make it difficult for Britain to deport them. We walked out of the Dublin agreement as part of Brexit - even though non-EU countries are part of it. That meant you had to claim asylum at first state you arrived at, or automatic decline, and you got fingerprinted and one go. So even if you tried again in another state - up come the fingerprints.
18
u/SnooSuggestions4887 14h ago
I think that they don't care
11
u/Rude-Dragonfruit-800 13h ago
People like the OP are more concerned about linguistic technicalities than what's actually happening in the material world.
Way, WAY too many people are being allowed to enter (and stay in) the country. That's the beginning and end of the matter.
→ More replies (8)15
u/EQ_Rsn 13h ago
It's not even slightly the beginning and end of the matter. There are a significant number of political options available to us that would've reduced the number of people claiming asylum in the UK - decisions which the right-wing in this country (Reform (formerly known as the Brexit Party), and the Conservatives) chose to take away.
The Dublin accord is a massive one. The removal of safe application routes for claimants outside of the UK is another, and underfunding the civil servants who process those claims is another. Those three things massively drove up the administrative backlog that led to the demand for hotels and barracks as temporary accomodation.
Now we're seeing net migration drop under Labour - both in terms of small boat crossings and other forms of migration - but that doesn't even take up a drop of airtime in comparison to the "here's an asylum seeker doing a crime" and "here's what Reform say about the decline of the West" stories.
Call it political incompetence or a concerted effort to fracture the British public, but either way it's the loudest anti-asylum voices who are to blame for what you're seeing, and the ones deriving the most benefit from it. Meanwhile, if we reopened those administrative routes to assess claims without people being in the country, rejoined the EU and the Dublin agreement, and invested in the civil service to rebuild the administrative manpower to sort the backlog, you'd sort out who has a legitimate claim and who doesn't much faster, making sure those who don't haven't already crossed into UK jurisdiction to even have the paperwork filed. But that's too humane and doesn't buy you angry voters, so it hasn't been done.
53
u/ebbelito 14h ago
Its even worse than that, my British Asian friends who were born here are getting "mistaken" for refugees and told to "go home", this is their home!
Whatever various racists say about asylum seekers or migrants or whatever they call them, they dont really care they are just being racist, it doesnt matter to them if a non-white person is an asylum seeker, an illegal migrant, a legal migrant, 2nd or 3rd generation British Asian, or even adopted for that matter, as soon as these racists see the skin colour they blame the non-white person for their lack of money, their lack of work, their small house, everything and anything.
25
u/DifferentSwing8616 12h ago
Im white english n I got told to fuck off back to Spain the other day. Like the hate is mad and directed everywhere. Most foreign bit of me is Scottish ffs
3
8
u/SpamHard 11h ago
I'm white British, got assaulted by a Reformer recently for being gay. It's just gonna spiral downhill as they become more emboldened.
→ More replies (1)4
44
u/beckyisabean 13h ago
I'm mixed race British and I've been getting this treatment for 25+ years. "Illegal immigration" is just an excuse for the same old racism.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (12)2
u/Smart-Bill3342 3h ago
Yeah no that’s a crass over-generalisation. My husband isn’t white, he’s an immigrant, do you think I’m telling him to go back where he came from? Shabana Mahmood has admitted that almost every woman who arrives via dinghy has been raped on her journey here. British women have been raped and sexually assaulted by these dinghy men who are allowed complete freedom to roam around our country. These are well-known facts that evidently haven’t made a dent in your understanding of the current situation, but let me assure you that it has more to do with some people’s fury about the current situation than just “durr durr skin colour bad”. Rest assured though, your condescension and misogynistic disregard for women’s rights and freedoms won’t win anyone over.
22
u/deceased_goat 9h ago
It's pretty irrelevant really. As a country we need to start being honest about our limitations. We may be 'wealthy' in principle but we're up to our eyeballs in debt and are now spending more on welfare than we are recouping in income tax.
People say that immigration isn't our biggest issue, but it is an issue. How can it not be? More people doesn't automatically equal benefit to society. We have vast swathes of immigrants on benefits and even when they can work we have an over abundance of low skilled migrants which we don't really need, it's just more convenient than getting our own people up and doing the jobs they see as beneath them.
We can do something about the levels of migration and yet we seem determined not to. That is why it remains a talking point and the language of the debate will get more and more extreme the longer people are ignored. Britain's issues are not mutually exclusive. We don't have to ignore migrants just because billionaires exist and vice versa.
With the cost of living rising and people feeling more and more that migrants are getting handouts whilst they struggle, there is less and less care about asylum. More and more people do not care about the plight of people from other nations and why should they? It's not their job to subsidise the world.
→ More replies (12)
19
u/GBParragon 11h ago
Police officer here:
I think the definition is understandably blurred. I deal with people in various states of immigration status and they do flex, change and blur.
People will enter the country legally on a student visa or holiday visa for example or perhaps enter wholly illegally via lorry or small boat. Then when arrested subsequently as an overstayer / illegal worker etc they then claim asylum.
I can understand why cases of people who have entered the country via one mode lived for several years without raising their concerns about going home and then only later claimed asylum would leave others struggling to understand the differentiation. It’s made more complicated when the asylum claimants comes from a country that we would think of as stable and safe.
13
u/HovercraftEasy2328 14h ago
The difference means nothing because the end result is almost identical
→ More replies (3)
10
32
u/MiltonSpule 14h ago
They already had asylum in France. France is a safe country. The only reason they risk their lives is a personal preference to live in the UK and that makes their journey over the channel illegal and is why people refer to them as illegal immigrants.
3
u/Smooth_Elephant8524 12h ago
France was safe til they started raping people
There too2
u/Busy-Department-6816 9h ago
You mean that French bloke who drugged his wife and invited other French men to rape her?
→ More replies (49)5
u/Novel_Let5775 14h ago
No law says they have to stop in France
2
u/Most-Cloud-9199 13h ago
Can you just keep passing through countries ? Just say I don’t need a visa , I am claiming asylum several countries further along
→ More replies (5)
25
u/lithiumcentury 12h ago
They are economic migrants. They come here for free stuff and benefits. Even those that want to work are low skilled and therefore reducing the number of jobs available to the low skilled people that are already here. It does not matter to me if their home country is a mess - the same can be said for 2-3billion other people around the world. Furthermore, who is going to fix their country if all the fit young men leave?
→ More replies (11)
19
u/G1850n 14h ago edited 8h ago
I think nuance is lost on a lot of people.
It's virtually impossible to enter the UK legally as an asylum seeker outside of the specific schemes (e.g. Ukraine, Afghan). So even if they have genuine reasons that would make them eligible to claim asylum (as many do) there is no legal method for them to enter the UK to start with.
Also, as soon as there's an over-crowded boat struggling in the channel, maritime law says we have to assist. Towing back to France is not an option once they are in UK territorial waters and recovering them to the UK is always the safest and most legal option at that point.
But once they have entered, and declare they are seeking asylum, they become legally protected.
If they don't claim asylum or are ineligible, only then are they considered illegal.
Long wait times at the GP is nothing compared to what many of these people have experienced. I really think we need some form of exchange scheme for all the anti-immigration bigots to learn some empathy.
6
u/ZennMD 10h ago
Of course a long wait time is not as bad as what many of the newcomers have experienced
But thats not a fair comparison- the wait times now are substantially longer than they used to be. Being upset about that is valid.
Saying waiting for necessary health care 'isnt as bad' is honestly oddly unfeeling and unempathetic to people waiting for health care, it's not like theyre whinging about an Amazon delivery being delayed, delayed health care can health poorer health outcomes and even death.
The anger should, of course, be towards tbe government and any nhs mismanagement, not the newcomers, but some anger is valid.
perhaps you should work on your own empathy for those waiting longer for health care, and not write everyone off as 'anti immigrant bigots'
Edited typo
3
u/G1850n 8h ago
Claiming I'm dismissing NHS delays or calling everyone bigots is kind of distorting what I said.
I completely agree that delayed treatments is one of the biggest issues we're facing as a country.
I'm merely making a point about the bigoted, unempathetic and frankly absurd views of those who blame "newcomers" for the NHS and all their other problems, and generally see them as less than human.
→ More replies (4)3
u/metal_maxine 10h ago
The problem with the "UK territorial waters" thing is that French coastguard are "observing" the boats as they cross a busy, dangerous international shipping lane with unpredictable conditions etc rather than stopping them while they are still in French waters. Instead, they are tailing them and make the call to the UK coastguard once they are in UK waters _after_ these people have put themselves in danger. Sure, by "observing" them, they might be able to rescue the people when one of these boats fails but I consider it only a matter of time before one of these boats goes down too fast for everyone to be rescued.
I grew up in Dover and the older generation are still haunted by the Herald of Free Enterprise (a RO-RO ferry) going down (and it went down faster than you might expect). I worry that if the customs cutters and lifeboats are otherwise occupied rescuing small boats then a larger maritime disaster isn't going to get support on the scene fast enough.
→ More replies (2)12
3
u/Wizard_Of_Auz 6h ago
Would be interesting to see how many failed asylum claims actually result in deportation. It's incredibly hard to deport so they just remain in the UK in limbo indefinitely.
→ More replies (6)3
u/Beginning-Bird9591 9h ago
What happend to us? We use to be an empire and now we're just a pathetic country that just cowers over shitty laws that choke us.
→ More replies (1)
118
u/Latter-Tangerine-951 14h ago
I think you're hopelessly naive. The vast majority of "asylum seekers" are economic migrants, and therefore illegal immigrants.
You do realise they are coming from a safe country to be here, right?
77
u/aleopardstail 14h ago
coming from a safe country, via multiple safe countries and paying criminal gangs to do so
2
u/Euphoric_Leave1248 11h ago
“B-b-b-but international law!!! We have a moral obligation!!!”
→ More replies (3)26
u/Cold_Captain696 14h ago
An asylum seeker is exactly that - someone who is seeking asylum. The fact they could be lying isn't really relevant, because that's what the asylum process is supposed to determine. So until that process is completed, they're asylum seekers.
Do you also think we should convict people of crimes without bothering to have a court case, just because some people are really really certain they did it?
12
u/Friendly_Yak_2713 13h ago
While this is obviously true in a technical sense I don't think it's some kind of gotcha.
The debate is clearly about not wanting many people sustained here while that process takes place
→ More replies (3)4
u/Upper-Requirement987 13h ago
Then the solution is to expedite the processing of claims. I don't see a single comment suggesting that.
→ More replies (3)6
u/Special_Photo_3820 13h ago
The people that arrive here we don’t even know what their name or age is. You see when they’re in the news it’s “XX who claims to be 22” when it’s obviously a 40 year old man.
→ More replies (4)11
u/Shumble91 14h ago
We had a perfectly good agreement with Dublin III that was ripped up in the haste of Johnson seeking his hard Brexit. We had systems in place to return people who crossed the border between UK and France illegally and France had an obligation to spend on this. Since we formally left the EU, there was no obligation.
13
u/ffordeffanatic 13h ago
They are not illegal migrants until a decision has been made as to their legal status by a UK court. Wanting to come here for economic reasons is not inherently illegal.
→ More replies (24)14
u/Zeptacular 13h ago
That's simply not true. Under the Immigration Act of 1971 anyone who requires permission to enter who does so without it has committed an offence, hence the illegal part. They get served as illegal entrants by the Home Office when that fact has been established. Their intention, economic or asylum, has sweet FA to do with it.
→ More replies (6)7
u/OilAdministrative197 14h ago
Gonna say at this point i dont care and dont want either
→ More replies (5)11
u/Commercial-Hat-5993 14h ago
I see the Russian bots are back
4
u/Sad_Criticism5558 13h ago
The irony is that it is Russia that has basically admitted to pushing economic migrants into Europe in an attempt to destabilise the countries
4
u/Sad-Medium5677 12h ago
People like you make me laugh. You all parrot the same comment to anything you find disagreeable instead of debating it or moving on. Dim-witted and embarrassing.
→ More replies (1)37
u/Scared-Tangerine4182 14h ago
“Every comment I don’t like is a bot”
19
u/Comfortable-Pass-183 14h ago
It’s getting ridiculous now and is just used to derail conversations.
→ More replies (1)6
17
u/Latter-Tangerine-951 14h ago
Ah yes.. russians want us to .. not accept migrants? because of reasons!
→ More replies (1)11
u/kfc4life 13h ago
Russians want to sow political discourse and create animosity.
Are you actually that thick you haven't realized that ?
7
u/Windman772 12h ago
I'd say supporting mass illegal immigration would cause a lot more discord than being against it. Maybe you're the Russian bot?
→ More replies (2)4
4
4
9
→ More replies (4)2
7
u/WrekTheHead Brit 🇬🇧 14h ago
There is no obligation to seek asylum in any particular country. Maybe they don't speak French (or German, or Spanish, or Italian). Maybe they have friends or family here.
6
u/Spursfan14 13h ago
>Maybe they don't speak French (or German, or Spanish, or Italian). Maybe they have friends or family here.
So what?
Do you understand how hard it is for someone to legally move their spouse to this country? Or how many people would love to bring over their entire extended family because 1 or 2 people are here?
Asylum is about saving people from being tortured or killed, it’s not a free for all to move to whatever country you fancy.
And frankly if we’re morally obligated to provide an asylum system then other people are obligated to not abuse it.
21
u/WillingCry1043 14h ago
Maybe there is just a really easy to exploit system here and there are Tik Tok videos with guides how to get here (encouraging paying criminal gangs whatever is required) and exploit said system if you'd care to look it up.
→ More replies (22)3
u/WrekTheHead Brit 🇬🇧 14h ago
Explain how the system is easy to exploit, and if it's so easy, why small boat arrivals are plummeting?
5
u/TiDY42086 14h ago
There absolutely is under the very definition of the term! Of course most of them have friends and or family here because they arrived the same way!
11
u/P_lebbitor 14h ago
There's no legal obligation to seek asylum in any particular country, but it negates the claim of asylum when they are seeking comfort rather than safety. 'I don't speak the language' is comfort.
8
u/sultansofswinz 13h ago
Asylum was intended for people whose lives are in immediate danger. If there’s a strong chance you will be tortured or killed.
They don’t just get to dictate the language they speak and the benefits on offer. None of that would matter because once the village you live in has been cleared of threat you would be returning anyway. There are parts of Ukraine that were occupied and now they’re not, it doesn’t mean they don’t want to return and live in a safe city. Of course they do.
The above is irrelevant because every one of us tax payers are being scammed by these economic migrants who aren’t even from a warzone in the first place.
→ More replies (5)6
u/WrekTheHead Brit 🇬🇧 14h ago
Let's say you need to escape the UK for whatever reason. You have a relative or friend in Greece that is willing to help you. You escape, and land in France. Are you going to stay in France, where you don't know anybody, you don't speak the language, you can't understand anything that is being explained to you...or are you going to try to get to Greece where you know you will get help and assistance?
7
u/Spursfan14 13h ago
> where you know you will get help and assistance?
The subtle swap here is in your example it’s a relative who’s going to provide this help and assistance.
In reality when people turn up here, it’s the taxpayer who’s paying for their food, medical care, legal bills, education and everything else, not their relatives.
Obviously people will continue to act in their own self interest which is why we need to reduce the incentives to come here.
People aren’t risking their lives to get from France to England to flee torture, it’s because it’s easier to work illegally, you can get put in a hotel instead of being stuck in a tent shanty town outside Calais and because of the former, people they know are already here doing this.
None of these are reasons that we’re obligated to take asylum seekers. There is not a single person in France that we are morally obligated to take into this country because they are unsafe over there.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)18
u/zapcatcher 14h ago
Your whole premise completely falls apart when you look at the basic figures of where most asylum claims come from.
Why do you need to ‘escape’ from Pakistan? India? Vietnam?
The system was put in place after WW2 in response to the holocaust to make sure people could find safety from state sponsored persecution.
It is a legal framework that is no longer fit for purpose. The vast majority of claims are complete bullshit on an industrial scale.
→ More replies (28)7
→ More replies (25)6
u/Mindless_Local925 14h ago
What a profound argument, let people in and then we have to let people in because we already let their friends in!
3
→ More replies (38)2
u/East_College2072 13h ago
Here we go... Based on what little fella? Lets hear your evidence, I can wait.
26
u/aleopardstail 14h ago
Asylum seekers generally don't travel all that far, most are trying to escape immediate danger, generally with their families and what little they can escape with. most generally want the danger to go away so they can go home
generally such people deserve help, both short term and help to go home, ideally by making it safe to go home
3
u/Squadron_leadr 13h ago
"..generally with their familes". Honestly where do you get your information. 90% of small boat arrivals are male. 70% are adult. Almost all of the rest are older (male) children which tend to be regarded as adults by many of the sorts of countries they travel from which are always a rather long way from the UK!
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (27)14
u/neverseenadragonfly 14h ago
I always thought if I was escaping something I doubt I'd travel half the the continent without my my wife and child. If I was being sent to war I probably would however.
16
u/barejokez 14h ago
i often hear this, and often challenge it.
i assume you are british? imagine a situation where you simply cannot remain in ther UK - you have 48 hours to leave, and you do so with the clothes on your back, and your mobile phone, passport and £1,000 cash in your pocket. you are given the choice of going to:
- france
- germany
- canada
- australia
- dubai
which one are you choosing? bearing in mind that the journey distance is only a small piece of the puzzle. other issues deserve to be considered: do you know anyone in those countries who you can rely on for help? can you speak the language in those countries, well enough to find employment in due course? do you think whatever the problem is in the UK could pursue you to these places? etc etc.
because with all of that in mind, i would 100% go to canada or australia first, not least because i have cousins living in both.
i realise that omits the small boats question, but honestly if germany and canada were separated by 30 miles of open sea i'd have to at least consider it. yes you want to be safe first and foremost, but once you have that, it is very logical to think about more than day-to-day survival. and fortunately asylum laws allow you to do that.
6
u/aleopardstail 14h ago
in that situation why would you not pick, and this is a pure off the wall suggestion I know, Ireland
you know next door, easy to get to, few language issues, pretty good cultural fit and then when the problem clears not hard to come back
3
u/barejokez 11h ago
it's a totally fair question, but i excluded it from the list to reflect the fact that not every country has that kind of relationship with its closest neighbour. I think it's fair to say that in many cases, countries with a close neighbour have quite an antagonistic relationship with them (which would also have been be the case with ireland 30 years ago of course). not always, but sometimes.
bear in mind also that if a substantial portion of refugees start heading to the nearest and most obvious refuge, any goodwill that does exist will start running dry rather quickly.
2
u/aleopardstail 10h ago
its amazing how far you can get by respecting your hosts, speaking the language, or at least speaking a language spoken there, not trying to make them change and by adapting to their ways and customs
3
u/barejokez 10h ago
just to be clear, are you saying that asylum seekers have forced you to change the way you live?
→ More replies (6)5
u/ssessd 13h ago
You're the type of person who tries to suggest third options to the trolley problem, aren't you?
→ More replies (7)13
u/soothysayer 14h ago
Most of them don't... The vast majority flee to neighbouring countries. It's why countries like Iran have such a huge amount of refugees compared to Europe
1
3
5
u/aleopardstail 14h ago
depends on the circumstances, when there is a genuine danger in a country it would be worth while supporting nearby countries taking in actual refugees escaping whatever the problem is, while also trying to help address the problem
6
u/TheHornyGoth 14h ago
The pipeline is
Leave- set up somewhere safe- bring family through legal channels-claim Right to Family Life
As for why the family doesn’t travel as a unit? People smugglers charge in multiple ways if you’re female (to put it incredibly euphemistically)
→ More replies (5)6
u/DaveBeBad 14h ago
Kids aren’t really up to walking 1000+ miles - and women are a walking target for exploitation.
→ More replies (9)5
u/Bisjoux 14h ago
There’s been a change though. How many migrants currently arriving have wives and children in their home country? I know we saw this with Syrians but it seems many arriving these days are young single adult men. So from that it’s more likely they are seeking an economically better life for themselves than seeking refuge for their non-existent wives and children.
→ More replies (2)3
u/TellMeManyStories 14h ago
The illegal immigrants I know generally video call their wives and children back home every day. They keep in super close contact, and send every penny they can earn back to them. They usually plan to get their wives and children over to england too, but can't because of the extreme costs involved and big debts they usually owe to their smuggler.
Often one immigrant working a less-than-minimum-wage job in England is sending money home to feed and house 5 or more people!
And they're living in constant fear of being sent home or not being able to earn enough to repay their smuggler.
40
u/Mindless_Local925 14h ago
The distinction is largely irrelevant when our Asylum system is perverted to the point where it’s pretty easy to be abused by someone who is here for the same purpose as an immigrant
14
u/aleopardstail 14h ago
basically this, we have processes written by well meaning people largely from an age where actually getting here was quite the effort and thus only likely to be undertaken by those in genuine need
6
9
u/PapaWhisky7 14h ago
There’s only 3 countries anyone should be coming from and claiming asylum. Ukraine, Sudan and Myanmar. Everyone else is taking the piss.
→ More replies (14)3
u/New-Income-8266 14h ago
So you don't agree that the people of Afghanistan that assisted our armed forces when we invaded their country should be granted asylum after we left it for the Taliban to take back over?
5
u/Did_OJ_Simpson_do_it English 13h ago
If we're specifically talking about the people who fought on our side then yes they should be allowed to settle, just like when we let Polish servicemen settle in Britain after WWII.
If you're talking about random Afghans turning up sans-papiers then no, they shouldn't have the right to come here.
→ More replies (6)2
u/merryman1 6h ago
The frustration is the whole memeification of the debate has hidden the complexity and nuance of the system.
The entire fucking point of the asylum process is to hold people in some sort of secure housing and spend some time and resources actually assessing their claim.
The 2D lowest-common-denominator politics we see trapped with in the UK right has meant they see it instead as just hand-waving people on it. That is exactly what their governments have done when in power. And so they seem to just completely ignore this idea that there is actually supposed to be a serious and intensive vetting process, something that even "pro open borders" New Labour were able to recognize and build up.
It seems to be a common issue across a lot of political discourse. These things are complicated, there is supposed to be and needs to be a robust process in place to handle things. But instead we're trapped with stupid black & white arguments where everything has to be a 1 or a 0 with no nuance or space for reasoning inbetween.
8
u/PapaWhisky7 14h ago
We assisted them not the other way around. We can’t keep trying to clean up other peoples shit when the UK is on a race to the bottom.
2
u/UpsetKoalaBear 13h ago
They never asked for assistance.
The government followed the US who were looking to dismantle Al-Qaeda and oust the Taliban after activating NATO’s Article 5.
Both objectives failed.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)2
→ More replies (1)2
u/PapaWhisky7 14h ago
Well it’s the only 3 parts of world with any war going on.
3
u/-captaindiabetes- 13h ago
War isn't the only legitimate reason to claim asylum but you probably know that
→ More replies (1)2
9
u/Crunchie64 14h ago
It seems the Reform Party don’t know the difference, and don’t know what is legal and what is illegal, so what chance do their followers have?
11
u/danielsemaj 13h ago
They cross the whole of Europe to get here through safe countries. It’s their choice to come here, not because they are fleeing anything.
So as such they are illegal immigrants
→ More replies (6)3
u/glasgowgeg 13h ago
If the UK was the first safe country, would you demand we take every asylum seeker, or would you say that other countries should take a fair share?
→ More replies (4)
23
u/olig1905 14h ago
I think it is both... Many are wilfully ignorant because it supports their racist views, however I think alot of peoples views are fuelled by intentionally willfully ignorant propaganda and they simply don't k ow better than what they are being told and what their algorithms are presenting them.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/sandboxmatt 14h ago
I mean they also made the argument that Brexit would get rid of the "wrong colour" of foreigner not realising that we would have to relax visas to make trade deals with the rest of the world while giving the "right colour" of foreigner the boot.
People are fucking stupid.
6
u/Successful-Yak-5537 12h ago edited 12h ago
I have spent a lot of time on Reddit defending the idea that we should not leave the ECHR etc., and should adhere to our international law obligations.
That being said it is clear that the asylum seeker process is being widely abused. It is true that those in the asylum seeker process are given temporary leave to remain while that process is underway, but it is also true that many of them enter the country in the first place illegally, and it is also overwhelmingly likely that a significant number of them apply for asylum dishonestly.
The dilemma is that if you start requiring hard evidence of their reason for needing asylum, many genuinely needy people will be turned away which would be unlawful and unethical. But it is obviously a gap which is very easy to exploit for economic migrants.
Stopping asylum is not the answer, but carrying on as we are isn't either. We must try to find a way of honouring our international law obligations and basic human charity while resisting being taken advantage of by those who do not qualify for asylum.
4
u/Correct_Ice4899 12h ago
I mean many would argue that once you travel through multiple safe countries to explicitly arrive at the detached island with no unsafe countries remotely close to it. That you're not fleeing a dangerous home as was the original intention and are just looking to exploit a outdated law/system.
5
u/SocialMThrow 11h ago
Honestly it makes no difference, people don't want either of them here.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/Inevitable_Name648 13h ago
Because there are almost no genuine asylum seekers from France. It seems like you don’t understand the difference.
→ More replies (2)
10
u/Hopeful_Fuel_2117 11h ago edited 11h ago
they entered the country without permission, so they are immigrants who aren't here legally, therefore they are illegal immigrants. (or invaders if you want to go down that route)
→ More replies (11)
17
u/Ill-Opportunity8918 13h ago
Once they leave their own country they are safe and i don't think we have any obligation to them. It's their choice to trek all the way here. We have a small island and our own citizens to look after. Language is a poor reason for us to have to spend billions on the asylum system. And when they force their way in by boat you can't see anything wrong with that? They have committed a crime and we should reward them? The name doesn't matter. People are taking us for mugs. I'd love to live in New England or Northern Spain. Shall I just go their demanding my better life.
2
→ More replies (12)2
u/Theory89 12h ago
We are obliged by international law to accept refugees. There is no other way to claim asylum in he UK, we do not allow applications from outside the country. If we were to actually ban them we would be breaking the law, whether you agree with it or not. They are not "safe" once they leave their country. 400,000 British people live in Spain, out of a foreign population of roughly 10 million. Many of these asylum seekers do, in fact, remain in mainland Europe. Wanting somewhere safe to live is not "taking us for mugs".
The only reason you think we're struggling to afford to do so is not because we're incapable of affording it, it's that the rich are taking us for mugs. They're also the ones telling you that it's foreigners who are responsible. Asylum seekers are not the reason that wages have not risen with the increases in the cost of living. 14 years of Tory misrule is the reason.
3
u/Radiant_Evidence7047 10h ago
Are we obliged to accept people who lie constantly to manipulate? They burn IDs so criminal checks cannot be done, so country of origin cannot be sourced, and so they have no background that can be checked. They lie about which country they come from, and then lie about crazy things like being a homosexual.
We are at a stage now where it is so obvious these aren’t genuine refugees are instead illegal immigrants breaking into the country to try and take advantage of an overly generous welfare state.
If people can genuinely put their hand on their heart and at our cities and towns have culturally changed beyond recognition due to this and other uncontrolled migration, you’re either a liar or moron
→ More replies (9)5
u/Euphoric_Leave1248 12h ago
Not obliged to do anything. Britain is for Brits, do what’s best for the country.
→ More replies (11)
6
u/SoggyWotsits Brit 🇬🇧 11h ago
A lot of people don’t know the difference between asylum seekers and refugees either.
It’s still illegal entry if someone makes an unauthorised crossing on a small boat, but claiming asylum changes that. Which leaves the question of people who leave safe countries to make the crossing, or hide in a lorry, or come in by plane without the proper procedure.
If hundreds of people a day jumped off a plane and over the gates at Heathrow, would you automatically assume they must be fleeing a war?
6
u/WGSMA 10h ago
You can argue the technicalities all you want, but at the end of the day, people don’t care.
They call them “illegal immigrants” because that’s what they view them as, and think the law should class then as, regardless of what the legislation says.
When I call Man City “frauds” and “cheats”, even though it’s not been proven in a legal court, that is just my opinion, even if it’s not technically legally true. Its the same here
→ More replies (1)
16
u/Fragile_reddit_mods Brit 🇬🇧 14h ago
It pretty much doesn’t matter most of the time. That’s why.
Many of us don’t want either here. The reason for them being here is largely irrelevant.
→ More replies (66)
9
u/Barneymcgrew23 14h ago
Just because you turn up on a boat, doesn't make you a legitimate asylum seeker.
→ More replies (2)
10
u/Appropriate_Car_3711 14h ago
None of the illegal aliens who enter Britain via the channel have claims for asylum - they are economic migrants or migrants looking for women to abuse.
Interviews with many of the men have them admitting that.
→ More replies (21)2
u/hexnut101 14h ago
I mean for the majority you are correct genuine asylum seekers wouldn't be arriving with no paperwork for a start.
→ More replies (5)
3
u/Mafeking-Parade 14h ago
It's just semantics.
Right-wing folk prefer repeating the "illegal immigrant" propaganda line, because it justifies their feelings towards them.
6
6
u/Silent-Paramedic 13h ago
it's really interesting to see the difference between now and when the data centre got hit
5
u/mediumlove 13h ago
don't want either .
our asylum system is a joke, they can arrive for just about any reason, form anywhere , to be considered. once considered and inside the UK they can find legal and illegal pathways to stay.
the system needs total overhaul, an in the interim , a complete pause on all asylum seekers.
8
u/Bonzothedoggie 14h ago
In the UK we get the asylum seekers who are desperate to escape the horrors of a war-torn France.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Upper-Requirement987 14h ago
People have a right to seek asylum in the country they choose.
→ More replies (4)5
u/Mindless_Local925 14h ago
Says who?
5
u/lesloid 14h ago
Says the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the 1951 Refugee Convention. These were put in place after almost every western country turned away Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi occupied territories in the 30’s and 40’s condemning them to horrific deaths in the Holocaust.
→ More replies (9)
9
u/10oz-swing 14h ago
How about illegal immigrants pretending to be Asylum seekers. The illegal migrants coming on small boats and other means are mainly men. In my opinion, if I was fleeing a war torn country the first thing I would do is bring is my children and wife. The truth is the majority are economic migrants looking for a better life, unfortunately because of the method it is too easy for them to hide the monsters that come with them. On estimate MI5 are trying to monitor in excess 46000 extremists on their watch list, and are on average foiling 2-3 terrorist plots a week. It needs to stop for everyone’s sake.
3
u/ffordeffanatic 14h ago
Migrants are not illegal until they have had a legal decision made under UK law.
→ More replies (8)4
u/Apsalar28 14h ago
They are still asylum seekers. They may have a highly dubious claim and be taking the piss, but that doesn't change the fact that they are trying to claim asylum.
→ More replies (4)
7
u/Motor-Command-2680 14h ago
Call them what you like but the vast majority are gaming the system. Weak laws facilitate it and throwing freebies at them is a clear invite for more exploiters to come here.
9
u/Kenye_Kratz 14h ago
Explaining the difference is utterly pointless when there is mass exploitation of the asylum system by illegal immigrants. You know this, I dont know why you pretend you don't.
→ More replies (7)
2
u/Onyxiusss 14h ago
Illegal immigrants can include asylum seekers if they don't adhere to conditions and responsibilties set out by the home office.
2
2
2
4
u/One_Statistician4568 14h ago edited 13h ago
Had an argument with somone the other day. On Reddit.
they crossed multi safe country’s to get here. So are not migrants. They are illegal migrants. So are not fleeing from an unsafe country when they could have stopped in all the other safe country’s. One of them being France.
She chat GPT me Response and after that I gave up because at this point I might swell argue with AI. they are illegal migrants coming into the country illegally. Just becuase Nigel said something and everyone got butt hurt it doesn’t make illegal migrants legal.
But they are coming though multi safe country’s. And can flee to those! You don’t go through multi safe country’s to then stop at the last one to then say you fleeing a non safe country when all the country’s you passed though are safe.
7
u/Mundane-Taste1945 13h ago
"they crossed multi safe country’s to get here. So are not migrants. They are illegal migrants. So are not fleeing from an unsafe country when they could have stopped in all the other safe country’s. One of them being France."
This rule used to apply only when we were part of the EU. So breaking that rule doesn't make them illegal post Brexit.
I'm not saying I'm in favour of this, however that is a fact.
→ More replies (2)4
→ More replies (2)3
u/Winter_0322 12h ago
Under the refugee convention signed in the early 50’s (which Britain helped to write) refugees are not required to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach
→ More replies (7)5
u/pinkcuppa 12h ago
well, the main point of the outrage, and to make sure that this bullshit doesn't persist, we can quit the convention and change the law. It's ridiculous.
Note, that I have nothing against Ukrainian refugees - they're part of the european community, culturally not too far off and taking them in makes perfect sense. What does an Afghan refugee have to do with Britain, I will never have a clue.
→ More replies (10)
6
7
u/Master-Share1580 12h ago
Asylum seekers are fleeing persecution. People are not being persecuted in France. All those coming from France are therefore not fleeing persecution and must not be asylum seekers
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Charming_Advice_2933 14h ago
Well, it was a nice week, but it looks like yandex got more of their data centres back up and running 😂
5
6
u/Whooptyd 14h ago edited 14h ago
Seeking asylum from France?
Why don't they pay £40 for a cheap flight and instead pay thousands to go across the channel in a boat?
Maybe because then they'd have to declare who they are and what their background is?
The Home Office whistleblower said 99% of asylum cases are fraudulent.
We are being taken advantage of. Abolish the asylum system.
If we want to give asylum, we can do so ad-hoc, not have a dedicated system that will be exploited.
→ More replies (2)
14
u/Top_Question_4925 14h ago
They all cost us a fortune that’s all you need to know
4
u/l_clue13 14h ago
No that’s the tax dodging billionaires and corporations paying fuck all that’s doing thay
→ More replies (16)9
u/NiceGuyEdddy 14h ago edited 12h ago
No, they don't.
Even if you were one of the 5% top earners that actually pay in more than they take out, which you clearly aren't, annual population increases of 0.2% are way down the list of what costs the country more.
And that's assuming every immigrant gets benefits, which clearly isn't true, because how can they be taking your job if they don't work?
5
u/FarTransportation957 13h ago
Ha ha. Wow you are naive. 90% are fighting age men. And usually they've crossed multiple safe European countries to get here.
2
u/spannerfish2 13h ago
The official government numbers of asylum seekers has it 60/40. But yes there are more younger men trying for asylum. But why?
Well, simply put they go so that others don't have to. If my family were in desperate need of food/money. That is the real reason they come, one day's work on minimum wage can feed their family at home for a week.
But I'm not taking my young children or elderly parents on a long and dangerous journey. The smugglers are criminals. I'm not exposing my wife to potential sexual assault and exploitation.
So once you admit to yourself that every single migrant is a human with their own stories, then perhaps you'll understand.
The young men go, so their families don't have to.
→ More replies (3)3
u/teddy3143 13h ago
And I think that's a big part, if you have to deal with a long journey with rough sleeping, criminals, and probably not many easy ways to get any money, who is most likely to survive that journey? An undocumented woman or child put in front of human traffickers with the goal of ending up in a safe country is far more likely to be trafficked in a different way.
Who is most likely to survive that journey? Young men.
4
5
u/WhiteDogBrownBum 14h ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8e2wrre87wo
What's he claiming asylum from when he lived in France, Germany and Italy? He's an illegal immigrant.
2
u/Bojack35 14h ago
calling people who are housed in hotels and arrived in boats Asylum Seekers would ruin their argument,
Would it?
I think a lot of the anti immigrant crowd dont care if they are here illegally or legally seeking asylum.
They aren't here on immigration criteria - skilled workers etc. They are here because they want help, opponents dont want us to give it when we are failing to help our own. Doesnt matter beyond that.
→ More replies (1)
3
2
2
u/Ok-Thing4762 14h ago
If they turn up illegally they are illegal immigrants. Claiming asylum once they have arrived doesn’t change that.
→ More replies (10)
2
2
2
u/gaddafiduck_ 13h ago
A lot of people don’t understand the distinction, but also to a lot of people “asylum seeker” is a dirty term. They use it with contempt.
Both are demonstrated nicely in this thread.
I notice a lot of empirical claims are being made with no sources whatsoever. They’re just regurgitating whatever they’ve been fed by their echo chamber
2
28
u/Bot_Poster_61 14h ago
The whole "not really asylum seekers" talking point that is front and centre would suggest that most people do in fact understand what an asylum seeker is.