UK Politics

All those Albanians invading us are illegal immigrants and here to cause misery and trouble.

Albanians now control about 80% of the cannabis trade in the UK.

 

ironically posted at 4.20

 

Haha, sheer coincidence mate

 

Albanian gangs also run the entire county lines network, practically the entire English cocaine trade, illicit sex workers, the ports which help them smuggle drugs, people etc in, have thousands of money laundering avenues via pop up candy shops, hairdressers, takeaways etc. These are very well organised, dangerous gangs who are many steps ahead of UK authorities.

 

That is patently not correct. Asylum is entering a country to take refuge from your home country as it is unsafe with a genuine risk to your life. Illegal immigration is attempting to skirt the system. The key difference is asylum seekers would generally still rather be in their home country if it was safe to do so.

 

Can both not be true?

You think the thousands of Albanian men are genuinely claiming asylum rather than just trying to skirt the system?

 

Albanians cannot claim Asylum as their country is deemed a safe place to return to.

Asylum and illegal immigration are completely different. Its not even a matter of opinion. Its enshrined in law.

If an asylum seeker cannot provide evidence of persecution which includes documentation on who they are and where they are from then they can be removed. The issue is getting through all the cases.

How an asylum seeker gets to the UK is not important and usually cannot be done through legal routes. The idea that they should seek asylum in the first european country is moot for us as we are not in the EU to be able to send them back to those ports of entry.

We also got rid of the dublin accord which allowed us to ship them out. This factor alone was the reason so many people didnt try to use dinghies before we left the EU. It was too risky for them when they knew they would be caught as they landed and shipped back. Now the rules have changed and we cannot ship them back. Its a brexit benefit.

 

Your first sentence is incorrect and even a cursory Google search would tell you that. Albanians do, and therefore can, claim asylum in the UK. It kind of invalidates the rest of the points to a degree when the base fact is misunderstood.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/all/short_news/albanian-asylum-applications-in-eu-soar-amid-calls-to-clamp-down/

In terms of the UK, where currently around 30% of Albanians are granted asylum, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said that over 70% of all asylum seekers would see their cases granted if they were processed correctly.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/factsheet-small-boat-crossings-since-july-2022/factsheet-small-boat-crossings-since-july-2022#:~:text=Asylum claims by Albanian nationals,-Small boat crossings&text=More information on this policy,the preceding year (3,578).

Nonetheless, this year, 7,627 Albanians (year-ending June 2022) claimed asylum in the UK, more than double the number in the preceding year (3,578).

The fact you can claim asylum from a safe and relatively prosperous country shows (a) just how ludicrous the asylum laws we work under are and (b) how the gangs who facilitate these crossings know how to instruct people to play the system. Since your starting point was that Albanians shouldn't be able to claim asylum I'm guessing you would see these people as more of "illegal immigrants" and want it stopping as well?

In terms of the Dublin accord, I've asked previously but how many people actually got deported under that particular rule? I can't find it but I know that Germany suspended application of the rule because it didn't actually work. Did it have any material effect on controlling illegal immigration or was it simply another rule that ended up making lawyers even more rich and taking up a lot of admin without making a difference?

 

The vast majority of Albanians granted asylum are women trying to get away from the illegal sex gangs trafficking them which seems a Albanian specialty

 

Nope, if the system functioned correctly they would not be granted asylum and therefore would not be refugees. I also haven't spoken to thousands of albanian men about it nor have you, so I find that statement pretty prejudiced . there also isn't any evidence whatsoever that says they're all men so I dont know why you found it appropriate to say that.

 

Firstly I didn't say they were all men - they are majority men and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that - I asked you a question about the thousands of Albanian men who are entering the country through non-standard means.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/factsheet-small-boat-crossings-since-july-2022/factsheet-small-boat-crossings-since-july-2022#:~:text=Asylum claims by Albanian nationals,-Small boat crossings&text=More information on this policy,the preceding year (3,578)

Most Albanians crossing the Channel in small boats are male – for example, from 2018 to June 2022, 95% of Albanian small boat arrivals were male.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/27/albanians-arriving-in-uk-could-get-bespoke-route-for-immigration-cases-to-be-heard

MPs previously heard that about 12,000 Albanians have arrived in the UK after crossing the Channel so far this year, of whom 10,000 were single, adult men. This compares with 50 in 2020.

So I'd say my question was appropriate, based on fact and free of prejudice.

But at least you said "nope" - which therefore goes back to my point that the asylum seeker/illegal immigrant is interchangeable in quite a lot of situations. The Albanians are clearly trying to play the system (given that they're coming from a safe country) are entering the UK by circumventing the legal channels and then trying to use our weak immigration system to give it a shot, why not, they have nothing to lose. They are entering the country illegally (up to the point the declare they want asylum) and are also seeking asylum, both are true.

As for your other point about the system functioning properly - completely agree - it's inefficient and overwhelmed. It's also not helped that the judicial system built up around it over many years (both within the UK laws and from the ECJ) has created such a burdensome maze of caveats and bureaucracy that it is inherently a much longer process than it needs to be and allows for those with knowledge of the system (such as criminal gangs) to guide their "clients" on how to get through the net.

Everyone knows this though but every time the government comes up with any idea a large amount of left leaning people challenge it but don't come up with any alternatives. It's a problem everyone agrees on but nobody will let anyone try to fix.

To a degree this goes back to Starmer and the problem with our governmental system because they're not opposing it because the current system is good or because they have a better idea, they're opposing it because they know that whichever government causes the curve of illegal migration to drop and go downwards will have a much better chance of being re-elected in both traditional Conservative and also red wall seats. Fixing the asylum system is bad for the opposition even if it's good for the country.

 

you never used the word majority once, you just said thousands of albanian men. its only when you were pulled up on it you said majority.

if you look at the data further, it shows that 14% of male albanian asylum claims were granted that we have data on. so if we use that percentage on the 10k figure (the report you posted states we largely can't know the outcome of current small boat arrivals as their cases won't have been heard at this point), then 1400 have been granted asylum. a much less troubling figure to me than 10,000. the issue is that a hostile for the sake of being hostile and successive govt cuts have left us with a system that is not fit for purpose. if we can process claims effectively, we can quickly return people whose claims are not granted. Ironically the agreement that asylum seekers had to apply in the first country they reach was an EU agreement that we are no longer subject to, which in my opinion would also have helped things massively.

it is the fault of the people who have been running the country for the past 12 years not doing it very well.

 

I know. And it is still "thousands" of Albanian men. 10,000 of them apparently? So is your point that my question was accurate? There's nothing to pull me up on, I asked about thousands of Albanian men and there are thousands of Albanian me......what's the issue?

I get what you're saying about the 14% however that is based on the 2018-2021 figures when they're we're many fewer Albanians seeking asylum so while you might be right to extrapolate that upwards to the new figure. It would be wrong to say that 1,400 have been granted asylum as they 10,000 from this year won't have had their cases heard.

The thing is though that 10,000 coming (or 40,000 in asylum seekers in total) makes the actual process slower and arguably makes it harder for genuine asylum seekers. Using your figures, if 8,600 Albanian males still need housing while going through the process, have to have cases heard, appeals, etc, then it makes the backlog even harder. We need to make the process more efficient but also deter people from making these ungenuine attempts at entry. Both need to be done.

You're another one who has mentioned the Dublin accord EU agreement on applying infirst country so I'll ask you as well......I think you're either the 3rd or 4th person I've asked.....but how efficient was the system at removing migrants who had made their claim in the "wrong" country. I can't find anything about it online but my guess is that it will be no more than a couple of hundred a year and that these were encumbered by all the usual admin, time and paperwork you'd expect.

Completely agree, even further back than that too, and that includes the government, the judiciary and the EU. The whole system needs a very dramatic rethink but any time someone tries to do anything about it we don't seem to get away from the status quo.

 

I think it was very efficient given that the migrant boat crisis has only been an issue at the scale it has post-brexit. We certainly weren't dealing with an issue this scale in the years prior otherwise the mail et al would have been creaming themselves about it for all to hear.

I think that's because flying people to f*cking rwanda for processing hardly represents an efficient use of time and resources.

 

Go on then. How many people went back because of the Dublin accord? It's a simple question and everything else is moot if that didn't work anyway. If it sent back 20 people a week the exponential increase in boats will be completely unrelated to Brexit.

I don't think it does either. However if it acted as a deterrent then it would probably be the only thing that would stop the boats.

As I said, I get the impression that people aren't actually scared that it won't work......they're actually scared that it will. To me they've got to come up with a better idea or let them actually try things.

 

I can't find much for it either, but I've said why I think it was efficient to at least some degree. This simply was not an issue on the scale it is now pre-brexit. It would also be accurate to say when we got the navy on them, crossings actually rose. When the rwanda policy was in place, crossings again rose. So as much as it is easy to say people are opposing for the sake of opposing, the simple fact is these methods actually ended up exacerbating the problem.

 

So why are we guessing then? If it was a big deal you'd be damn sure that we'd be able to find it. Every other negative of Brexit - no matter how small - is an absolute doddle to find so it surely follows that it must be relatively insignificant.

The point you're actually making is that no matter what we do the issue keeps getting worse and I agree.

So we need to come up with an idea that does. Whether that's actually sending people to Rwanda or not is anybody's guess but we have to let they actually try something dramatic because playing at it is not going to change anything.

 

I did say in my post I think the solution comes from making attempts to improve conditions in these people's country of origin. How we do that is up for debate but I sincerely believe that would be the most effective way to solve this issue or at least make it manageable, alongside properly investing in and organising our border force/immigration people to minimise any backlogs etc for those that do still come here.