Who doesn't qualify?
Firstly, I have a problem with anyone who has already travelled thousands of miles, usually spending a lot of money to criminals, to get this far.
They undermine their case of persecution and need safety. By not asking for help in many countries they have passed through, its cherry picking.
However, lets try an over look that.
1. Anyone who has failed in an application in Europe, or been ejected for criminal activity
2. Anyone without papers of some sort, gets treated as non urgent or turned away completely.
3. Non combatant countries ( Vietnams/India/Pakistan/Tunisia/Egypt/Nigeria) you get the drift. The Albanians make a good example of this, as does boat loads of Sikh men recently filmed, from India
4. Proven criminals / wanted criminals/ members of terror groups ( see point 2)
5. Economic migrants
To counter, what do I want to see.
1. During the Syria flare up, Cameron came up with a great idea for me. We would select from the Camps in Turkey, those vetted and most vulnerable. The women/children/ infirm that can't hop on off lorries and have a jolly across the channel
2. Assuming you have an agreed quota.
Seperate the 2 classes- refugees and asylum seekers.
Both have to be treated differently. For example, Ukranians are refugees and want to/ will be sent home asap. A Afghan Interpreter is obviously going to need full asylum, as I doubt he is going home in his/her lifetime
3. your off shore application centre can then help fill in the gaps missing in your quota with more less vulnerable, as long as they qualify as true refugees from identified countries.
I know it still has gaps, but at the moment, the piss is ripped out the system and it has crashed into the mess we are in now.
We need to filter out the real con artists first and deal with the miniscule details later.
The longer this goes, the harder it is to help the real needy in all of this farce.




Reply With Quote