Mps Have Voted In Favour Of Assisted...
News0 min ago
Just One In Ten Asylum Seekers Who Come To Britain Are Sent Back
19 Answers
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
May be good to get some perspective before debating:
http://
http://
“May be good to get some perspective before debating:”
It’s not entirely clear what the data you provided is, Zacs. It says this at the top:
“Incoming 'Dublin' requests by submitting country (PARTNER), type of request and legal provision”
I’ve really no idea what this means. Do you know? I know it suggests that the UK dealt with about 1% of the applications (whatever they were). But since the data is obviously something to do with the Dublin Agreement (which determines that asylum seekers should make their application in the first EU country they arrive in) that’s only to be expected. In fact it’s too high as there should be none reaching the UK overland or by sea.
So I don’t really know what “perspective” it is we need.
It’s not entirely clear what the data you provided is, Zacs. It says this at the top:
“Incoming 'Dublin' requests by submitting country (PARTNER), type of request and legal provision”
I’ve really no idea what this means. Do you know? I know it suggests that the UK dealt with about 1% of the applications (whatever they were). But since the data is obviously something to do with the Dublin Agreement (which determines that asylum seekers should make their application in the first EU country they arrive in) that’s only to be expected. In fact it’s too high as there should be none reaching the UK overland or by sea.
So I don’t really know what “perspective” it is we need.
Another interesting perspective:
http://
BACKGROUND INFO FOR THOSE UNABLE TO USE A SEARCH ENGINE: a request to another 'Dublin' country to TAKE CHARGE of your application (to accept responsibility for it) must be made within 3 months from the date of your application. The requested country must give a decision no later than 2 months from the date on which it received the request.
A TAKE BACK request to another 'Dublin' country to take responsibility for your application must be made within 2 months of receipt of a hit on the Eurodac system – which records the fingerprints of applicants and can identify whether you have already applied for international protection in another Dublin country. If the take back request is based on other evidence, it shall be sent to the other Dublin country within 3 months of the date on which Ireland becomes aware that another Dublin country may be responsible for your application.
http://
BACKGROUND INFO FOR THOSE UNABLE TO USE A SEARCH ENGINE: a request to another 'Dublin' country to TAKE CHARGE of your application (to accept responsibility for it) must be made within 3 months from the date of your application. The requested country must give a decision no later than 2 months from the date on which it received the request.
A TAKE BACK request to another 'Dublin' country to take responsibility for your application must be made within 2 months of receipt of a hit on the Eurodac system – which records the fingerprints of applicants and can identify whether you have already applied for international protection in another Dublin country. If the take back request is based on other evidence, it shall be sent to the other Dublin country within 3 months of the date on which Ireland becomes aware that another Dublin country may be responsible for your application.
You’ll have to indulge me a little because I still don’t understand. I don’t understand two things:
1.I don’t understand what the figures you have supplied mean. They show, for example, that in 2016 Italy dealt with almost 65,000 (around 30%) of these “”incoming requests”. Does that mean that 65,000 people landed elsewhere in the EU, made an asylum application there but went on to make a request for Italy to handle their asylum claim? Or does it mean that 65,000 people landed in Italy, launched a claim and asked for their claims to be transferred elsewhere?
I strongly suspect the latter but either way, it doesn’t matter because
2. I don’t know how it is relevant to the original article. That focussed on where the Dublin Agreement is being breached. It showed where applicants fail to make their claim in the “first country” and the “second country” seeks to have them returned (e.g. those who arrive in the UK in the back of lorries from Calais). It explains that the second country (or at least the UK) is having very little success (about 10%) in gaining protection under the Dublin Agreement by having the applicants returned to the “first country”.
The figures you provided do not include these clandestine arrivals but (as far as I can understand) only count (whatever way round it is) those who legitimately make claims.
It’s not a question of being unwilling or unable to do any research. I simply don’t know the relevance of the figures you provided to the question under discussion. The UK dealt with around 30,000 asylum applications in 2016 and the table only mentions about 1,700 (the details of which are still unclear to me). Many of that 30,000 were from people who should, under Dublin, have made their claim elsewhere. The failure to have them returned is nothing to do with the porous border arrangements prevalent across Europe and it is not naïve to expect the provisions of an international agreement to be respected.
1.I don’t understand what the figures you have supplied mean. They show, for example, that in 2016 Italy dealt with almost 65,000 (around 30%) of these “”incoming requests”. Does that mean that 65,000 people landed elsewhere in the EU, made an asylum application there but went on to make a request for Italy to handle their asylum claim? Or does it mean that 65,000 people landed in Italy, launched a claim and asked for their claims to be transferred elsewhere?
I strongly suspect the latter but either way, it doesn’t matter because
2. I don’t know how it is relevant to the original article. That focussed on where the Dublin Agreement is being breached. It showed where applicants fail to make their claim in the “first country” and the “second country” seeks to have them returned (e.g. those who arrive in the UK in the back of lorries from Calais). It explains that the second country (or at least the UK) is having very little success (about 10%) in gaining protection under the Dublin Agreement by having the applicants returned to the “first country”.
The figures you provided do not include these clandestine arrivals but (as far as I can understand) only count (whatever way round it is) those who legitimately make claims.
It’s not a question of being unwilling or unable to do any research. I simply don’t know the relevance of the figures you provided to the question under discussion. The UK dealt with around 30,000 asylum applications in 2016 and the table only mentions about 1,700 (the details of which are still unclear to me). Many of that 30,000 were from people who should, under Dublin, have made their claim elsewhere. The failure to have them returned is nothing to do with the porous border arrangements prevalent across Europe and it is not naïve to expect the provisions of an international agreement to be respected.
You've actually, kind-of, proved the point I wanted to make, NJ, with all your questions. It's an immensely complicated situation, so saying 'just' one in 10 is rather ignorant of this, and where this 'just' fits in with the pan-European situation, which I tried to find out.
You're a reasonably intelligent chap, maybe you could do some research of your own?
You're a reasonably intelligent chap, maybe you could do some research of your own?
Purely on a practical level the UK should have virtually zero applications for asylum under the Dublin agreement because it is virtually impossible to get to the UK as a first port of call. Other than the odd few and poor standards at some airports where would they come from.... Wherever there are ferry and trade ports that come to the UK.
Any and all should just be ferried back to their originating port and left with them to deal with. We should be processing no one that hasn't arrived legally. It is only because we are too stupid or useless that this is not done.
On a side not I think that someone should go out to the originating countries and put it about that Germany is a much better place to aim to get to.
Any and all should just be ferried back to their originating port and left with them to deal with. We should be processing no one that hasn't arrived legally. It is only because we are too stupid or useless that this is not done.
On a side not I think that someone should go out to the originating countries and put it about that Germany is a much better place to aim to get to.
Statistics, statistics and damned statistics.
They say everything to everyone depending on how you want to interpret them.
1% of the overall figure is, for me at any rate, irrelevant. It could be 0.01% and it is still too much because of my point above. We are not looking at how many people other countries process. Just how many we do.
They say everything to everyone depending on how you want to interpret them.
1% of the overall figure is, for me at any rate, irrelevant. It could be 0.01% and it is still too much because of my point above. We are not looking at how many people other countries process. Just how many we do.
'We are not looking at how many people other countries process. Just how many we do.' Then you would be looking with an uninformed / perspective-less view.
'the UK should have virtually zero applications for asylum under the Dublin agreement' It should. But it doesn't. It's therefore important to try to ascertain why. The Dublin agreement clearly is 'pants' as far as efficacy is concerned, which seems to be the why. This lack of efficacy is clearly demonstrated by the links I gave (hence my reason for giving them).
'the UK should have virtually zero applications for asylum under the Dublin agreement' It should. But it doesn't. It's therefore important to try to ascertain why. The Dublin agreement clearly is 'pants' as far as efficacy is concerned, which seems to be the why. This lack of efficacy is clearly demonstrated by the links I gave (hence my reason for giving them).
That's precisely it, cassa.
There's nothing complex about this issue, Zacs (though I cannot say the same for the figures you provided). There should not be any "first time" applications for asylum in the UK unless those people arrive directly by sea from outside the EU or by air.
The article demonstrates that the Dublin Agreement is worthless. European countries - in particular France - are failing to fingerprint those people they catch trying to board lorries (which they are supposed to do under Dublin) because they are then supposed to process an asylum claim. They refuse to accept repatriation requests from the UK on the basis that it is impossible to establish where the clandestines first set foot in the EU. Of course with the prevalence of the Schengen Area and the willingness of most EU nations to usher illegal immigrants northwards and westwards, it will always be thus. Basically, once they are shot of them across the Channel, that's thus.
There's nothing complex about this issue, Zacs (though I cannot say the same for the figures you provided). There should not be any "first time" applications for asylum in the UK unless those people arrive directly by sea from outside the EU or by air.
The article demonstrates that the Dublin Agreement is worthless. European countries - in particular France - are failing to fingerprint those people they catch trying to board lorries (which they are supposed to do under Dublin) because they are then supposed to process an asylum claim. They refuse to accept repatriation requests from the UK on the basis that it is impossible to establish where the clandestines first set foot in the EU. Of course with the prevalence of the Schengen Area and the willingness of most EU nations to usher illegal immigrants northwards and westwards, it will always be thus. Basically, once they are shot of them across the Channel, that's thus.
"I thought it important (as I'd concluded this was the case) to see how we were being affected compared to the rest of Europe. It would seem we fare pretty well."
I'm not in the least interested in the rest of Europe. Most of those countries were dopey enough to sign away the right to police their borders (despite being warned that the freedom of movement they craved meant freedom of movement for those not entitled to be there as well as those that are). They deserve whatever they get.
I'm not in the least interested in the rest of Europe. Most of those countries were dopey enough to sign away the right to police their borders (despite being warned that the freedom of movement they craved meant freedom of movement for those not entitled to be there as well as those that are). They deserve whatever they get.
1 to 19 of 19
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.