2 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

P.S. Much of the UK's problem stems from Brexit (you know, the one that was supposed to sort the problem out) and the UK coming away from the Dublin Agreement that stated that asylum seekers had to claim asylum in the first country they entered.

 

Rubbish. The Dublin Agreement was as effective as what we've got now.

 

Since the beginning of the century there have been camps in Calais and also the infamous 'Calais Jungle'. People were smuggled to the UK in the back of lorries, through the Channel Tunnel and on ferries.

 

The 'boats' only started long after the same method was used to transport people from North Africa to Southern Europe.

 

Pitiful attempt to blame everything on Brexit 🙃

6 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

It's called 'the law'.

The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, mandates the Home Office to provide accommodation and subsistence to destitute asylum seekers while their claim is being processed. This is further supported by the UK's obligations under the UN refugee convention. This is also true of the vast majority of Europe who have the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum which also ensures asylum seekers have access to adequate living conditions, including housing, food, and healthcare, from the moment an application is made. 

 

 

Then change the laws. That's the purpose of Parliament.

Build some military style accomodation in the Orkneys or even the Falklands (still in the UK as I understand it) and process them there. Might be surprised how many put their hands up to be repatriated.

Had some success in Australia using a similar process.

3 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

More like 99.9% are fake. Have you seen what is coming in on those dingies? 

Mostly seem to be males , aged between 16 to 30.Rarely see a woman or kids on them.

2 hours ago, GanDoonToonPet said:

 

Rubbish. The Dublin Agreement was as effective as what we've got now.

 

Since the beginning of the century there have been camps in Calais and also the infamous 'Calais Jungle'. People were smuggled to the UK in the back of lorries, through the Channel Tunnel and on ferries.

 

The 'boats' only started long after the same method was used to transport people from North Africa to Southern Europe.

 

Pitiful attempt to blame everything on Brexit 🙃

And you have facts and figures to back this up I suppose? No? Well just as well I do.

Firstly 'People (who) were smuggled to the UK in the back of lorries, through the Channel Tunnel and on ferries' are not asylum seekers unless they declared themselves so - they would be illegal immigrants. And The Calais Camp you are refering to existed from January 2015 to October 2016, when it was eventually bulldozed. It housed both immigrants for the UK and for France. However,before 2017 there was no recorded small boat arrivals (ZERO, nada, zip) into the UK. In 2018 it was 539, by 2019 it was approx. 1,900, in 2020 (Brexit start date) it was 8,417, but by 2021 (after the 1 year transition period and when we left the Dublin Agreement) it suddenly jumped to 28,526 and has grown steadily to what we see now, with last year growing to a whopping 36,816 people. And this is JUST small boat arrivals. Now that's some coincidence don't you think - we leave the Dublin Agreement (and the EU) and literally small boat arrivals jump up by 450%. And I'm not even including other modes of transport where immigrants DON'T declare themselves as asylum seeekers and just melt into the population.

 

By any measure you care to use - economically, socially, culturally, science funding, security sharing, ease of travel in the EU etc, Brexit has been nothing short of a disaster AND it still didn't stop immigrants (illegal or asylum seekers) from coming here (what you ALL based your vote on) and in fact made things much, much worse. By not being a part of the Dublin III Regulation (the core principle of which is that the first EU member country or associated state a person enters is responsible for processing their asylum request), the floodgates opened to the UK.

5 hours ago, proton said:

 

Granting asylum does not mean they were genuine cases, are you really so naive?

Its exactly what it means. Unless you really know a different criteria you'd like to share? I've read multiple places its a very high bar to get asylum.

4 hours ago, digger70 said:

Yes, They come in today ,process them tomorrow and send them Back the day After tomorrow  . Perfect No excuses.

Correct. Now go find out the real political reason why there was a massive slowdown in processing.

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

And you have facts and figures to back this up I suppose? No? Well just as well I do.

 

Yes, I do 😊

 

So, according to you, there was a 450% increase in boat arrivals the year after the UK left the Dublin Agreement. Let's use your figures for the previous year when the UK was still a signatory of the DA:

 

8,417 / 1900 gives a 443% increase. Basically, within a small margin of error, the same as the following year. How do you explain that?

 

Also consider that, under the DA, only 560 illegal immigrants were deported each year on average. Compare that to 2024 when it was 35,000.

6 minutes ago, gravity101 said:

Correct. Now go find out the real political reason why there was a massive slowdown in processing.

Because they vote for the diversity/freebies party. If the boats were full of Reform voters they would be stopped in 5 minutes.

1 minute ago, GanDoonToonPet said:

 

Yes, I do 😊

 

So, according to you, there was a 450% increase in boat arrivals the year after the UK left the Dublin Agreement. Let's use your figures for the previous year when the UK was still a signatory of the DA:

 

8,417 / 1900 gives a 443% increase. Basically, within a small margin of error, the same as the following year. How do you explain that?

 

Also consider that, under the DA, only approximately 500 illegal immigrants were deported each year. Compare that to 2024 when it was 35,000 per year.

Well you have my facts and figures.

 

When I was talking about '450% increase in boat arrivals the year after the UK left the Dublin Agreement'. My calculation was the 36,816 in 2024 divided by the 8,417 in 2020 (the year we came out of the Dublin Agreement) = approx 450%. Yes, there was a massive leap from 2019 to 2020 but you can also attribute that to the smuggling gangs knowing the UK had voted to leave the EU (and therefore the DA) and basically got their act together. If you want to compare like for like, we were still in the EU in 2017 when it was zero, 2018 when it was 539 and in 2019 it was approx. 1,900. A big increase percentage wise of course but not near the very big numbers we saw after leaving the EU and The DA. 

 

The point being is the UK saw a massive increase in small boat arrivals in sheer numbers AFTER we left The EU and even more when we left The Dublin Agreement and had very little choice in the matter as they could no longer insist that asylum seekers claim asylum in the first country of entry.

 

Because of Brexit.

 

It's simple to fix. Firstly, withdraw from the ECHR... UK laws are better and have protections for it, just won't have to listen to moron EU judges anymore, and no other country listens to judges from other countries, just stupid.

Secondly, deny any benefits at all for illegal arrivals... period, no ifs or buts. Take away the pull factors.

Thirdly, house them is some god-forsaken wind-swept Scottish island in a warehouse with just basic services far away from cities or communities.

Fourthy, tell all countries that refuse to take back their nationals will get economically sanctioned and have visa restrictions to the UK implemented for their nationals... including their rich.

Would soon see some change and co-operation. Trouble is, UK politicians are spineless and not from the UK now whilst representing people that don't belong there and have scammed us.

If Denmark, Australia, the US, Austria, and soon places like Poland and Germany can do it... then why can't the UK? Because of pathetic politicians, that's why.

Sorry to say, but drastic problems that have been allowed to fester for too long require drastic actions to fix... the longer you leave it, the more unpalatable the solution becomes.

5 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

The point being is the UK saw a massive increase in small boat arrivals in sheer numbers AFTER we left The EU and even more when we left The Dublin Agreement and had very little choice in the matter as they could no longer insist that asylum seekers claim asylum in the first country of entry.

 

OK let's use your figures again and the fact that the UK left the DA in December 2021:

 

In 2020, we already calculated 8,417 / 1900 gives a 443% increase.

 

In 2021, again using your figures, there was a 28,526 / 8417 = 339% increase. If the UK was still in the DA, but just about to leave, why was there a decrease?

 

13 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Because of Brexit.

 

You really are obsessed

 

43 minutes ago, gravity101 said:

Its exactly what it means. Unless you really know a different criteria you'd like to share? I've read multiple places its a very high bar to get asylum.

 

It's not difficult at all, their stories are usually impossible to verify and nor is their country of origin. They come with a pack of lies already prepared- eg life threatened in Afghanistan but they are really from Pakistan. Many are from countries in Africa where there is no conflict at all but they can claim to be gay or they were subject to persecution due to politics views. If the bar was high then thousands would be shipped back, but they are not.

7 minutes ago, GanDoonToonPet said:

In 2021, again using your figures, there was a 28,526 / 8417 = 339% increase. If the UK was still in the DA, but just about to leave, why was there a decrease?

 

 

What are you talking about? What decrease?

 

One more time:-

2017 - zero.

2018 - 539

2019 - 1,900

2020 (Brexit start date) - 8,417

2021 (after the 1 year transition period and when we left the Dublin Agreement) - 28,526

2024 - 36,816

 

Between 2020 and 2021 an increase of 20,109. What aren't you getting?

11 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Surely if the British government stopped all the freebies, like free Hotels, free food, free medical etc, they would stop coming.?

 

Remind me. How much does the UK pay the bloody French every year to stop the illegal Channel migrants? Why doesn't Starmer tell Macron to ***k off. It isn't just the migrants laughing at us, it is the whole French nation. They would stop coming if the bone idle French pulled their fingers out.

10 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

I agree that the processing is way too slow, but my point was if the message got out no more free stuff, they would stop coming in the first place.

If you are say a young male Somalian and you got no job in Somalia, no money/savings, no prospects, the UK would look to be a good move?

 

You are correct; it's all about the incentives. These people understand where they will receive the most benefits.

10 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

It's called 'the law'.

The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, mandates the Home Office to provide accommodation and subsistence to destitute asylum seekers while their claim is being processed. This is further supported by the UK's obligations under the UN refugee convention. This is also true of the vast majority of Europe who have the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum which also ensures asylum seekers have access to adequate living conditions, including housing, food, and healthcare, from the moment an application is made. 

 

 

Laws can be changed. 

11 hours ago, proton said:

 

It's not difficult at all, their stories are usually impossible to verify and nor is their country of origin. They come with a pack of lies already prepared- eg life threatened in Afghanistan but they are really from Pakistan. Many are from countries in Africa where there is no conflict at all but they can claim to be gay or they were subject to persecution due to politics views. If the bar was high then thousands would be shipped back, but they are not.

A little bit of research goes a long way. Just a heads up, 53% were refused asylum in 2024 pending appeal. And as for asylum fraud, well you look up how its being addressed and countered. Do you really think, knowing how much of a political football this is and the financial strains it puts on the UK, everyone is just rubber stamped in by officialdom - get real, thats a lazy uninformed opinion.

 

From the Gov

 

As of June 2024, the total ‘work in progress’ asylum caseload consisted of 224,700 cases. Of these, around 87,200 cases were awaiting an initial decision and 137,500 cases had received an initial refusal and were awaiting some kind of further action.

 

The total asylum caseload has quadrupled in size since 2014, driven both by applicants waiting longer for an initial decision and a growth in the number of people subject to removal action following a negative decision.

Why do they travel to the UK for asylum?   Why not other countries in Europe? 

11 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

Why do they travel to the UK for asylum?   Why not other countries in Europe?

They do. Germany, Poland and France all have more refugees than the UK does. And countries like Spain are on equal footing in terms of refugees to the UK. Turkey significantly more. Maybe they like the UKs food and climate 😉

1 minute ago, gravity101 said:

They do. Germany, Poland and France all have more refugees than the UK does. And countries like Spain are on equal footing in terms of refugees to the UK. Turkey significantly more. Maybe they like the UKs food and climate 😉

Turkey is a better place for them.  

2 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

Turkey is a better place for them.  

To be fair, UK has a lot of kebab shops too.

21 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

I agree that the processing is way too slow, but my point was if the message got out no more free stuff, they would stop coming in the first place.

If you are say a young male Somalian and you got no job in Somalia, no money/savings, no prospects, the UK would look to be a good move?

 

Of course you would, as would I.

 

Let's say, hyperthetically the UK processed an applicant in 1 day; zero need for ALL the free stuff they get right now. They would be free to add to the workforce, pay tax and be a net positive, or if found to be a bogus claim, sent back to point of entry. Either way, none of this free accomodation and food and basic health would be needed.

 

Maybe the we should be addressing the causes rather than barricading the ramparts. This is the main objective of international aid, to try and stop things at source. It may sound idealistic, but show some humanity.

19 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Incorrect. The UK spent £2.8 billion, or 20% of its aid budget, supporting refugees in the UK in 2024.   https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9663/

 

If you are going to quote (incorrect) figures then I suggest doing a little more homework.

Do you think I just came up with the 6 billion, out of thin air?? do you think i didn't research it first?

You need to take your own advice!

 

What you quoted, the 2.8 billion is ODA-eligible asylum costs (first-year support, ONLY,  20% of £14.07 billion aid budget), a subset of £4.7 billion, also taxpayer-funded.

£4.7 Billion: Direct asylum support (hotels, food, legal aid for asylum seekers/refugees).

£6.4 Billion:, which I was referring to is the Total overspend, including £4.7 billion (asylum) + £1.7 billion (non-asylum migration or illegal migration.

The £1.7 billion is for non-asylum migration costs (stopping boats, deportations, border security, Rwanda wind-down), not asylum support, but all £6.4 billion is paid by taxpayers. Source: HM Treasury audit, July 2024

 

To summarize:

The £6.4 billion represents the total additional spending pressure for 2024–25, covering all migration-related costs in the UK, including both legal (asylum seekers/refugees) and illegal migration (e.g., small boat prevention, deportations, border security), as outlined in HM Treasury’s July 2024 public spending audit.

 

 

 

15 hours ago, emptypockets said:

Then change the laws. That's the purpose of Parliament.

Build some military style accomodation in the Orkneys or even the Falklands (still in the UK as I understand it) and process them there. Might be surprised how many put their hands up to be repatriated.

Had some success in Australia using a similar process.

Absolutely, put them in a tent in the Falklands, see how long before they pack up and go home?😅

20 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

No one is denying that there is of course those that game the system but that's what immigration/asylum courst are for and it's hardly the fault of the asylum seeker if that system is fundamamentally broke. The UK has an asylum backlog of around 91,000 applications awaiting a decision, with 55% of those waiting for more than six months. Fix the system and you reduce an awful lot of problems.

 

P.S. Much of the UK's problem stems from Brexit (you know, the one that was supposed to sort the problem out) and the UK coming away from the Dublin Agreement that stated that asylum seekers had to claim asylum in the first country they entered.  

An inconvenient truth that most of these deluded reform supporters appear completely unaware of. And Brexit was supposedly all about regaining sovereignty. Farage and Johnson should hang their head in shame, but of course are both too narcissist  for that.

On 10/22/2025 at 11:26 PM, AnnaBanana said:

This is beyond ludicrous.

They need people with the cojones to enforce their laws.

Sounds like a job for Trump

Starmer is a pathetic weak leader.

 

Nobody believes a word he says.

 

The country despises him.

 

He knows he will never get reeleceted so he is trying to so as much damage as he can in one term. 

16 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

What are you talking about? What decrease?

 

The decrease in the percentage increase which was what you originally talked about and we have been discussing. Now you are moving the goalposts to raw numbers, we can add that to your post-hoc fallacy.

 

You still haven't addressed the numbers deported under the DA. I repeat, between 2008 and 2020 only 560 people per year, on average, were deported under the DA. Compare this to the tens of thousands deported by other methods.

 

How much of a deterrent do you think the DA was?

 

I suggest almost zero therefore making your claim that 'Brexit' caused the increase in illegal immigration somewhat laughable.

 

4 hours ago, Rocky Sullivan said:

Sounds like a job for Trump

Indeed it does... or somebody who is hung like him.

9 hours ago, gravity101 said:

To be fair, UK has a lot of kebab shops too.

And Turkish barbers apparently. Most of the empty all day.