Because, according to Steeley they are all seeking asylum in the UK

They will never answer this question

I think you’re both right and wrong there Spider.

I would suggest it’s a not a number, but a question of to what extent does the society around them have to crumble under economic pressure? Or societal/cultural structure dissipate and fall? Before they realise ‘twas not the world, or the country that was wrong, but their own failings to achieve and find fulfilment or satisfaction within themselves. That’s been my experience anyhoo!

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

We are becoming more convinced you are a complete knob.

'Tony Blair's war-mongering'

When those agreements were starting to be made it was at a time when we had handfuls of people escaping communist oppression in Eastern Europe. The lawmakers did not envisage mass migration from across the world.

As Spiderman has pointed out the overwhelming majority of migrants are not asylum seekers but due to the sheer volume they are never returned.

The definition of Asylum seeker has also been watered down by our courts it was supposed to be for political opponents who faced death or imprisonment in their home country. Today if you are from Jamaica (A democratic country) and gay you can claim asylum.*

The definition of Asylum needs to be re-defined and targetted at genuine political refugees and not at anyone who would have a hard life back home.

But the question still is how do you stop criminal gangs and economic migrants abusing the asylum system whilst allowing genuine cases to remain.

I have previously said I am not convinced that this Rwanda deal is the right solution that said Priti Patel is correct when she asks all her critics what's their solution? They have no answer, apparently Labour's policy is closer co-operation with the French which has not worked up till now despite the millions of pounds we have paid them.

The truth is that most of the loudest voices don't want any controls at all so no solution will ever be desirable in their eyes.

* If you are a gay Jamaican the threat doesn't come from the state but from individuals, well on that measure most people in this country could point out they are at risk from crime.

Edited by Badger11 (19 Apr 2022 9.39am)

One more point

That's an obviously unrealistic concept. If "all 8 billion" turned up, they couldn't all be asylum seekers because it would have to include everyone they were fleeing from too!

This is an international problem that cannot be solved by one country setting its own arbitrary limits, which would create more problems than it solved. If international conventions need modification, then they need to be agreed at UN level.

That's not to say we cannot take a firm line on determining who is genuinely entitled to asylum, process things more quickly and avoid the impression of us being a soft target for the victims of the people smuggling gangs, but just setting a number is an impractical, unattainable approach.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.