There is no limitations on how many safe countries you can travel THROUGH before applying for asylum status. As long as you apply for asylum status.
There should be a limit. This convention is an issue and should either be rewritten or completely disregarded. People are using the veneer of asylum seeking to migrate to countries they want to go to, someone in their right mind genuinely fleeing a war for the sake of their lives isn’t going to risk their life and families further than necessary getting on a dodgy dinghy. The only people who do that are grifters with no regards for the law.
Asylum spending is 0.25% of the budget. Oil subsidies are 2%. Priorities?
This Lemmy post has nothing to do with oil subsidies. 0.25% of the national budget of one of the largest economies in the world is still a lot of money and could go elsewhere.
which used to be 2 years, they were considering upping it to 5 years. Which is dumb.
Better yet, if you have arrived via a safe country, deportation. The Rwanda policy was a good answer to this issue.
The best thing we to do in caring for refugees is having settlement programmes to relieve our European neighbours such as the Mediterranean countries and Turkiye. Like what we did with Ukraine. I’d argue that debate even then is completely different from the small boats debate. Which in itself is completely different from the wider immigration debate as a whole.
Being anti people crossing the Irish Border, or the English channel on a small boat, is not an anti immigration or even anti asylum seeker sentiment. It’s a sake of national and even international security (in terms of crime gangs).
If it was scrapped it would be unfair on neighbouring nations. Especially ridiculous considering the UK is one of the countries that was actively involved in destabilising the middle East.
How are they grifters? They apply for asylum. If they get it, they’re the real deal. If they don’t, they’re deported. What’s there to oppose there?
Context is relevant. If you care about spending, why care about asylum spending more than oil subsidies?
You talk about resettlement programs and how they’re a good way of doing things. How about the countries who destabilised these nations, takes on those seeking asylum? In which case Turkey should bear zero Afghan or Iraqi immigrants, and the western world should bear all of them. Or does it only work one way, in your mind?
Overall I am under no illusions that immigration is an issue in the UK, and is simply being peddled by those who run our media and economy, in order to distract people from real concrete issues like corruption, collusion, homelessness, poverty, etc. like they distracted you.
You talk about resettlement programs and how they’re a good way of doing things. How about the countries who destabilised these nations, takes on those seeking asylum? In which case Turkey should bear zero Afghan or Iraqi immigrants, and the western world should bear all of them. Or does it only work one way, in your mind?
Fair point. I’m just talking about border security here.
The rest of the points you make are fair, too. Ideally we shouldn’t have destabilised the middle east to begin with. Can we blame the USA on this one? 😂
There should be a limit. This convention is an issue and should either be rewritten or completely disregarded. People are using the veneer of asylum seeking to migrate to countries they want to go to, someone in their right mind genuinely fleeing a war for the sake of their lives isn’t going to risk their life and families further than necessary getting on a dodgy dinghy. The only people who do that are grifters with no regards for the law.
This Lemmy post has nothing to do with oil subsidies. 0.25% of the national budget of one of the largest economies in the world is still a lot of money and could go elsewhere.
Better yet, if you have arrived via a safe country, deportation. The Rwanda policy was a good answer to this issue.
The best thing we to do in caring for refugees is having settlement programmes to relieve our European neighbours such as the Mediterranean countries and Turkiye. Like what we did with Ukraine. I’d argue that debate even then is completely different from the small boats debate. Which in itself is completely different from the wider immigration debate as a whole.
Being anti people crossing the Irish Border, or the English channel on a small boat, is not an anti immigration or even anti asylum seeker sentiment. It’s a sake of national and even international security (in terms of crime gangs).
Overall I am under no illusions that immigration is an issue in the UK, and is simply being peddled by those who run our media and economy, in order to distract people from real concrete issues like corruption, collusion, homelessness, poverty, etc. like they distracted you.
Fair point. I’m just talking about border security here.
The rest of the points you make are fair, too. Ideally we shouldn’t have destabilised the middle east to begin with. Can we blame the USA on this one? 😂