- 2 days
Being married to a British or Irish citizen should just be an automatic right of abode imho
That, and she has a dependent who is presumably a British citizen as well.
But if they came over from France on a rubber dinghy on the other hand…
- idealism_nearby@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Please fuck right off with the anti-immigration sentiment. I got enough of that when I was on Reddit.
- 23 hours
What I said was largely pro immigration. I’m critical of the home office policies.
- idealism_nearby@lemmy.worldEnglish23 hours
The third paragraph sounds like you’re opposing immigration
- 22 hours
Most immigration isn’t done by paying criminal gangs to help you skirt past immigration controls by throwing you on a dodgy inflatable dinghy and sailing across the English channel so you can enter the country unvetted and pretend to be a refugee in order to claim and take advantage of British government assistance, at the expense of the UK taxpayer, that is there for other people who actually need it.
- idealism_nearby@lemmy.worldEnglish21 hours
Aaaaand there it is.
According to the UN convention on the treatment of refugees:
- There is no “legally acceptable” way to travel to a safe country. Ergo dinghys are acceptable
- 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.
In addition:
- Asylum spending is 0.25% of the budget. Oil subsidies are 2%. Priorities?
- Asylum seekers are not entitled to regular UK benefits. They get treated as asylum seekers, i.e. they can’t work, have to stay in a hotel (certainly not nice ones), and basically are treated like 2nd class citizens until they have been here long enough to be considered “allowed to work”, which used to be 2 years, they were considering upping it to 5 years. Which is dumb.
So please for the love of the gods, educate yourself, and be less hateful.
- 14 hours
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).
- idealism_nearby@lemmy.worldEnglish13 hours
- 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 a non-issue in the UK, and is simply being peddled by those who run out media and economy, in order to distract people from real concrete issues like corruption, collusion, homelessness, poverty, etc. like they distracted you.
