Comments by "TruthWarrior" (@Truth-warrior-j3e) on "Starmer GETS CRUSHED BY Worst News From HIS VOTING BASE!" video.
-
2
-
@EgoChip ok my pleasure
who said we want criminals? The reasons why many genuine asylum seekers do not use legal routes is very well documented.
The UK offers very few official legal routes for asylum seekers to apply for protection. For example, resettlement schemes or family reunification programs exist but are often limited in scale, have strict eligibility criteria, and do not cover all types of asylum seekers. As a result, many people cannot access these pathways.
In addition the UK generally requires asylum seekers to be physically present in the country to apply for asylum. Unlike some other countries, the UK does not allow people to apply for asylum from abroad (with some exceptions, such as refugee resettlement). This means that many have no choice but to reach the UK by irregular means in order to seek asylum.
There are other reasons too. Many asylum seekers flee countries with oppressive regimes, war zones, or failed states, where it may be impossible to obtain legal travel documents.
Additionally, it is almost impossible for people fleeing persecution to obtain a UK visa for travel, as they may not meet the requirements of ordinary visa categories such as work, study, or tourism.
Furthermore Asylum seekers often flee life-threatening situations, such as war or persecution, and may have to leave their homes suddenly without time to navigate complex legal systems. Their priority is to find safety quickly, even if it means taking irregular routes, rather than waiting for potentially unavailable legal processes.
Many asylum seekers may not be aware of any legal routes available to them or may lack access to legal advice that could help them understand the options.
Additionally, misinformation or exploitation by traffickers and smugglers can lead them to believe that there are no safe and legal ways to reach the UK.
Finally, the UK is an island nation, which makes it more difficult for people to reach through regular travel means compared to countries accessible by land. This can force individuals to resort to irregular and dangerous routes to make it to the UK.
For these reasons, many genuine asylum seekers are unable to use legal routes and end up risking their lives on dangerous journeys to reach safety in the UK.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EgoChip who said we want criminals? The reasons why many genuine asylum seekers do not use legal routes is very well documented. The UK offers very few official legal routes for asylum seekers to apply for protection. For example, resettlement schemes or family reunification programs exist but are often limited in scale, have strict eligibility criteria, and do not cover all types of asylum seekers. As a result, many people cannot access these pathways.
In addition the UK generally requires asylum seekers to be physically present in the country to apply for asylum. Unlike some other countries, the UK does not allow people to apply for asylum from abroad (with some exceptions, such as refugee resettlement). This means that many have no choice but to reach the UK by irregular means in order to seek asylum. There are other reasons too. Many asylum seekers flee countries with oppressive regimes, war zones, or failed states, where it may be impossible to obtain legal travel documents. Additionally, it is almost impossible for people fleeing persecution to obtain a UK visa for travel, as they may not meet the requirements of ordinary visa categories such as work, study, or tourism. Furthermore Asylum seekers often flee life-threatening situations, such as war or persecution, and may have to leave their homes suddenly without time to navigate complex legal systems. Their priority is to find safety quickly, even if it means taking irregular routes, rather than waiting for potentially unavailable legal processes. Many asylum seekers may not be aware of any legal routes available to them or may lack access to legal advice that could help them understand the options. Additionally, misinformation or exploitation by traffickers and smugglers can lead them to believe that there are no safe and legal ways to reach the UK.
Finally, the UK is an island nation, which makes it more difficult for people to reach through regular travel means compared to countries accessible by land. This can force individuals to resort to irregular and dangerous routes to make it to the UK. For these reasons, many genuine asylum seekers are unable to use legal routes and end up risking their lives on dangerous journeys to reach safety in the UK.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alangardner8596 I think I can see where you are confused. Correct me if you meant something else but my point about Schengen wasn't anything to do with the free movement aspect, it was to do with the significant impact this now has on the UK. This is important because the UK is now at a significant disadvantage compared to Switzerland because of Brexit.
Since the UK is no longer part of the European Union (and thus no longer part of the Dublin Agreement), the UK's exit from the EU and the Schengen Area has had several significant impacts on its immigration and asylum policies:
The Dublin Agreement is a key mechanism that regulates which country in the EU (and Schengen Area) is responsible for processing asylum applications. Under this agreement:
Asylum seekers must apply for asylum in the first EU country they enter.
If they travel to another EU country, they can be returned to the first country where they entered and applied for asylum.
Now that the UK is no longer part of the Dublin system due to Brexit, this means:
No automatic returns to other EU countries: The UK can no longer return asylum seekers to the first EU country they entered under the Dublin Regulation. This used to be a mechanism the UK relied on to reduce the burden of processing asylum claims for people who had passed through countries like France or Greece.
In the absence of the Dublin Agreement, the UK has had to develop new bilateral or multilateral agreements with individual EU countries for cooperation on asylum and immigration matters. However, as of now, there is no comprehensive replacement for the Dublin Regulation. This affects:
Asylum cooperation: Without the DA, there is no legal basis for returning migrants between the UK and EU countries unless specific agreements are in place. The UK has made efforts to negotiate deals with countries like France, but these are more limited in scope.
Border and security cooperation: The UK also loses access to key EU systems like the Schengen Information System (SIS) and the Eurodac database, which track asylum seekers' fingerprints across the EU. This reduces the UK's ability to easily identify if an asylum seeker has already applied in another EU country.
The lack of a replacement for the Dublin Agreement may have several effects on migration flows:
Increased difficulty in managing asylum seekers: With no formal framework for returning asylum seekers to other EU countries, the UK may face increased pressure to handle more asylum claims domestically. This might increase the number of people seeking asylum in the UK.
Channel crossings: The end of the Dublin Agreement has coincided with a notable rise in the number of migrants and asylum seekers crossing the English Channel by small boats from France to the UK. The UK government has attributed part of this increase to the absence of Dublin-style returns and has made efforts to curb these crossings through increased border patrols and bilateral agreements with France, though challenges remain.
1
-
@alangardner8596 That is simply not true. Both Switzerland and the UK have strong deportation policies, but the UK has taken a more public stance on deterrence. Switzerland, on the other hand, typically focuses on pragmatic and efficient deportation processes.
The UK has a stricter stance on asylum, particularly after Brexit, with the government reducing options for regularisation. Switzerland has a similarly tough asylum system but is sometimes seen as more flexible in cases involving humanitarian concerns or long-term residents.
Integration Policies: Switzerland offers limited integration opportunities at the cantonal level for certain illegal immigrants, while the UK’s "Hostile Environment" policy aims to restrict services to those without documentation. This makes life more difficult for illegal immigrants in the UK.
In both countries, immigration is a highly politicized issue. However, the UK’s immigration debate is more visible internationally, particularly after Brexit, with frequent discussions on reducing immigration numbers. Switzerland’s discussions, while equally intense, tend to focus more on practical enforcement rather than high-profile political rhetoric.
Regarding your second sentence, the specific number of 1.6 million as "new arrivals" in a single year is not supported by mainstream data for any recent year.
I assume you are referring to so called data coming from The Centre for Migration Control (CMC). The CMC is not widely recognized as a mainstream or academic institution and is not mentioned frequently in major, reputable sources like the UK's Office for National Statistics (ONS) or large international organizations like the UN or the International Organization for Migration (IOM). Think tanks and advocacy groups like the CMC often produce reports to support specific policy positions, and the reputability of such organizations can vary depending on their methodologies, transparency, and biases.
1
-
1
-
1