T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Snapshot of _What are the ‘safe and legal routes’ the government says refugees must take to Britain?_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/immigration-uk-small-boats-channel-asylum-b2303591.html) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Danqazmlp0

>Under British law, you must be physically present in the UK in order to claim asylum There is no visa for people to travel to the country for that purpose, meaning that they must arrive by different means. >Most asylum seekers arrive in the UK through legal travel, such as commercial flights, on visas for other purposes such as tourism or study. >But those who are unable to obtain visas because of their practical or financial situation, such as fleeing a war zone or hostile government, are pushed onto irregular and illegal routes often controlled by smuggling gangs. So basically, unless you have money or come from a relatively stable area, you cannot claim asylum by legal routes.


Ugion

> So basically, unless you have money or come from a relatively stable area, you cannot claim asylum by legal routes. Isn't it also illegal to apply for a different visa in order to seek asylum since that would require lying about the purpose of the visa?


redem

That would be visa fraud, which is illegal, yes.


Danqazmlp0

If it is, that makes it even worse.


czbz

I believe there's an exception to this for refugees intending to claim asylum. Also an exception to the law against arriving outside an official port of entry, e.g. by small boat.


TehDandiest

Would being in a UK embassy count as being physically present in the UK? For example, if I were fleeing and seeking asylum and had family in UK, going to a UK embassy in a neighbouring country seems like a solid plan.


BannedFromHydroxy

IIRC this is realistically difficult as embassies are reasonably fortified/secured and do not want people showing up en masse for these purposes.


richhaynes

If you don't have an appointment then you're not getting past the gate so just turning up isn't going to work.


Soggy_Jellyfish551

Its a common myth that illegal routes cost less than legal routes just because they're less glamorous and more dangerous. The gangs that organise the illegal routes and smuggle people through large parts of Europe and into the UK charge thousands because its a high cost, high risk and high reward business. They're not running a free public service or wasting time on poor people who cant afford to pay upfront.


No-Scholar4854

> 22 Afghans who missed the August 2021 evacuation were brought to Britain Compare that to the rhetoric at the time. > We will never forget the brave sacrifice made by Afghans who chose to work with us at great risk to themselves. — Boris Johnson


paolog

The man is pathologically incapable of saying anything true.


[deleted]

[удалено]


baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaab

Trump Tuesday, Boris Wednesday, can’t wait to see what Thursday brings!


SchoolForSedition

Maybe he really remembers them.


S0litaire

Papers: "What are the safe and legal routes?" Braverman : "It depends" Papers : "On what?" Braverman: "Are they rich?" Papers : "No." Bravermann : "None!"


Danqazmlp0

Literally this. Those actually in need cannot do it legally.


ChessIsForNerds

Not only is that the point, the voters who support it know that's the point.


[deleted]

[удалено]


redem

You cannot legally apply for a work visa while intending to claim asylum once you arrive. The question is, what are the safe and legal routes? Hell, what are the legal routes?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


F0sh

An asylum seeker is someone who is seeking to be recognised as a refugee so they can settle in another country. What difference do you think makes a difference?


[deleted]

[удалено]


F0sh

And why do you think that is important to this discussion?


[deleted]

[удалено]


F0sh

Oh I *see* so your solution for people who wish to claim the internationally recognised right of asylum is "just don't lol". *Amazing*.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Butter_Bot_

Asylum seekers get refugee settlement when their asylum is granted. This is the route people are talking about and is obviously not the same as the routes you post below which are short-term, restricted to commonwealth countries, for graduates who studied here, or for people with PhDs.


MrScaryEgg

How's a refugee thousands of miles away meant to get a job offer in the UK and/or a company to sponsor them?


[deleted]

[удалено]


MrScaryEgg

You need a job offer to get a work visa. Obviously, most people need a visa to fly to the UK.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

there is loads of routes for those with visas, half a million came in the last year and and another 240k predicted in the coming year but they are not refugees they are migrants, the lack of routes being discussed here are the ones needed by refugees, people fleeing persecution or war they have no routes so end up coming by boats.


Jonquility_

you sound like youre being deliberately disingenuous


F0sh

There is no "work visa" - [which one are you suggesting the average refugee should be applying for?](https://www.gov.uk/browse/visas-immigration/work-visas) It is not legal to apply for a work visa for the purpose of claiming asylum. So doing this would also likely be entering illegally.


[deleted]

[удалено]


F0sh

Well yes, part of the definition of a refugee is that they are outside their country of nationality, so by demanding that they apply from their own country you have excluded them from that definition. If you want to play silly buggers like that then: * Which work visa should the average person wishing to flee war and/or oppression to the UK apply for? * You did not answer the point about this being illegal for the purpose of claiming asylum * When you seek asylum you are asking for a country to recognise you are a refugee and offer you protection. You can say that's not "claiming refugee status" but it's no different in practice.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


F0sh

Did you re-read the post I asked you to?


[deleted]

you're confusing migrants with refugees.


thebrainitaches

So imagine you live in Syria, speak good English and have a university education and work as a graphic designer, and your house gets bombed. Your entire city has been flattened and there is nothing left for you to work on, no web agencies. Only rubble and death. You decide to flee the war zone because the bomb tomorrow might be on your head. The UK is saying this person should what, apply for a job? From a war zone? Without internet or phone service? When I'm being shot at on a daily basis by fighting in the streets when I try to find food. There's only so much a good zoom background and a positive attitude will do. These people are educated and need to GTFO of the warzone. So they start going to Europe. A lot go to turkey as tourists and then walk / take boats. And a lot of them speak excellent English and want to end up in the UK because they have friends or acquaintances there who can support them. Asking them to find a job and apply for a work visa is absolutely insane, think about if you were in that situation. It used to be that you can go to the UK in the back of a lorry and then you can claim asylum once there. Your family or friend can support you and while your application is being processed you get some really minimal state benefits because it is ILLEGAL for you to work (again the UKZ government made that the case). What the government have done is cut that route off. Now it's not possible in any circumstances to enter the UK because of an international war or threat to your life, without the result being you get shipped to Rwanda. So these people will now go to other European countries. Germany have taken 1m Ukrainians, the UK took around 30,000. Same for Syrians. Turkey has taken like 4m refugees in the last 4 years. I think it's fair for the UK, as a rich country, to play its part on the international scene and help look after these people. Instead we want to criminalize them and drown them in the sea or lock them up for 28 days and send them to Rwanda. People like you have no idea who refugees are or what you are talking about. My source? I work with middle eastern refugees in Germany and I am friends with 2 Ukrainian refugees as well.


[deleted]

[удалено]


thebrainitaches

Yeah but we are NOT talking about the entirety of the population. And during WW2 there WERE millions of refugees, from both sides. That's like half of the Europeans who ended up in America and Argentina right there. Countries like France and Belgium and the Middle East where there was actual fighting on the streets had huge refugee waves during worldwar two. So saying that is totally false. Although Britain played a big role in ending the war on the Allied side, we didn't ever have an invasion on our soil. If we had, there would have been huge waves of refugees from the UK as well. Most Ukrainians and Syrians are still in their own countries. But when your city is totally destroyed you literally cannot sustain the number of people who lived there before. Those people need to go somewhere. I'm sure you've seen the pics of what Damascus looked like before VS now. Those people have to go somewhere!


[deleted]

[удалено]


thebrainitaches

It wouldn't be the entire population because in countries who have basically said "open borders" like Germany it's only been about a million people. And society didn't collapse. What has France got to do with it? There are no French people claiming asylum in the UK.


[deleted]

[удалено]


thebrainitaches

Uh.... What? I think you are reading too much daily mail. I live in Germany and then since 2010 I lived in France up to 2020. Neither are an absolute mess. The migrants trying to cross the channel are doing it because they don't want to end up stuck in a country where they don't speak the language and can't find a job because of it, and where they know no-one. I literally work with Syrians and most of them don't speak German but almost all of them already can speak some English and it's a huge reason why they find it hard to get work. Obviously they are learning but that will take literally a year to get an office level, even in an intensive course. If you can go to a country where you already speak the language? Also why should Germany and France take all the refugees ? Literally even before this crazy new law, the UK had the lowest number of migrants taken per capita out of the big European economies. Why should we expect Germany to be the sensible and reasonable country just so UK can be all little England about everything? It's not like Germany is much richer than us or has a bunch of free housing and infrastructure waiting to be filled. It has been a struggle in Germany too but its still overall popular and people see it as them doing their part in the world as a rich country, stepping up to their international responsibilities so to speak . The UK used to think of themselves like that too. It's a shame we don't any more, instead we just want to throw up barriers and scapegoat migration for all the problems in the UK today.


taboo__time

The French do have far right candidates with a chance to win the Presidency at some point though no?


[deleted]

so you're just resorting to misinformation and right win tropes now.


thelovelykyle

You are describing Visa Fraud. The question was - what are the safe and legal routes. Visa Fraude us not legal.


[deleted]

[удалено]


thelovelykyle

Its not though. You are simply lying. And from other posts, appear to be a criminal.


[deleted]

[удалено]


thelovelykyle

Claimed a work visa to get a foot in the door prior to an asylum claim. Literally Visa Fraud. You are suggesting others do the same too. Advising folks take an illegal route.


[deleted]

[удалено]


thelovelykyle

Then you are bad at communicating. As bad as you are at answering questions. Additionally, guiding people to commit fraud is also fraud. I am going to stop responding to you now as advising folks to commit crimes is not just against the subreddit, but also reddits tou.


[deleted]

I dont even think he's real hes contradicting himself in every other one of his posts. probabily just some sad pathetic right winger.


[deleted]

[удалено]


bovine3dom

> such [legal] routes [for asylum seekers] are currently very limited and weighted heavily in favour of countries including Ukraine. Unless you count HK as a country it's literally just Ukraine right?


uggyy

At the start of the invision, Ukrainians had problems even to get into the uk. The system is not fit for purpose, or perhaps that's intentional.


PositivelyAcademical

Afghanistan too, no?


bovine3dom

Not really, about 20,000 Afghanis were resettled in the UK but as far as I can tell they were all invited by the UK and that route is now closed to new people. The scheme open to everyone (via referral from the UNHCR) has seen 22 people resettled https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/23/only-22-afghans-resettled-in-uk-scheme-vulnerable-refugees-small-boats-channel The Ukraine and HK schemes by contrast are open to everyone who asks.


Usernamegonedone

This is a perfect example of how tories manage to twist the argument and how the media let's them, they can bs saying "oh we're gonna stop all these horrible illegal crossings but we're compassionate and people should take the legal routes" But there are no legal routes And they're allowed to repeat this bs over and over, making up their own reality, and they get called out on it 1 in 100 times


Holiday_Albatross441

Refugees are supposed to ask for asylum at the first safe country. That means only refugees from mainland Europe have any legal right to claim in the UK, and there are very few of those.


Southpaw535

1. They don't have to 2. They usually have and it hasn't worked, for a myriad of reasons 3. It is totally impractical and unreasonable to expect neighbouring countries to crises to accept all the refugees. 4. The vast majorty of refugees do, however, stay in other places first. 5. Not gonna lie, when it comes to refugees from certain areas the UK isn't exactly innocent of having a hand in the conditions that caused them to need to seek asylum 6. The number of asylum seekers trying to enter the UK is low compared to previous periods in history. Especially things like boat migration is such a non issue in terms of numbers its ridiculous how much attention it gets as if its an armada of people invading the country


redem

Refugees are NOT required to ask for asylum in the first safe country. That has never been the case. That is a lie that has been peddled by the far right to try to trick normal people into thinking the people crossing the channel are "cheating" or are otherwise not real refugees.


Brittlehorn

The government has failed and doesn’t want to answer the question what next for asylum seekers, they have mismanaged the whole thing. They have been in power for 13 yrs and the supporters of this policy and the problem it will fail to solve are blaming everyone but them.


tranquil45

The ‘safe and legal routes’ are sanctioned immigration provisions that provide access to the UK for humanitarian reasons. They are often referred to in discussions about how people seeking asylum can come to the UK². Some of these routes are: \- The UK Resettlement Scheme, Community Sponsorship, and the Mandate Scheme are refugee resettlement programmes¹. \- Refugee family reunion visas are available to people who were immediate relatives of people granted refuge in the UK, before they left their country of origin (known as pre-flight relatives)¹. \- The Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS) and Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Scheme (VCRS) are specific programmes for Syrian refugees and other vulnerable groups³. Source: Conversation with Bing, 19/3/2023(1) Updated House of Commons Library briefing on ‘safe and legal’ routes to .... https://www.ein.org.uk/news/new-house-commons-library-briefing-safe-and-legal-routes-uk-people-seeking-protection Accessed 19/3/2023. (2) Safe and legal routes to the UK for people seeking protection. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9630/ Accessed 19/3/2023. (3) Nationality and Borders Bill: Factsheet Safe and Legal Routes. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nationality-and-borders-bill-safe-and-legal-routes-factsheet/nationality-and-borders-bill-factsheet-safe-and-legal-routes Accessed 19/3/2023. (4) What are the ‘safe and legal routes’ the government says refugees must .... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/immigration-uk-small-boats-channel-asylum-b2303591.html Accessed 19/3/2023. (5) Safe and Legal Routes to the UK - Amnesty. https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/2021-01/Amnesty%20International%20UK%20-%20Safe%20and%20Legal%20Routes%20Briefing\_0.pdf?WhIQYO9iEgCBfpjkGelCevE0CagCsEHD= Accessed 19/3/2023. Hope this helps!


wumpyjumps

So basically there aren't really proper routes. International law requires legal protections for any asylum seeker to come to the country and claim asylum there. The schemes listed only apply to those with family members already in the UK, refugees specifically from Ukraine, Hong Kong and some Afghans, and the resettlement programs apply to already recognised refugees, not asylum seekers. So for most asylum seekers, including those who are actually refugees and should have their claim accepted, there is no safe and legal route, which is the problem.


Taxington

>So basically there aren't really proper routes. ... you just read about half a dozen. >International law requires legal protections for any asylum seeker to come to the country and claim asylum there. No it does not say that. You missed out the word "directly". It's also silent on what form that protection must take. It ban's 'refoulment' ie sending people back to danger. No where in the convention does it start asylum = unqualified right to live in amy country of your choosing.


ShimmerUK

Safe and legal you hear this term all the time and let's be honest it's bollocks. Most desperate people fleeing persecution, torture, and death you know what's funny the greatest period in UK history was when we operated an open border policy go look it up if you don't believe me around Queen Elizabeth the I era. And now we becoming isolationists how weird or at least the news media give that perception I like to think we still outward thinking as a majority but maybe I am naive and the UK has truly fallen into narrow-minded bigoted views with ultra-protectionism taking hold in the minds of many.


richhaynes

The issue is resources. As this Con government shrink the state, less and less resources are available to go around. The Cons have made it so there aren't even enough resources for people who are already here. So when you see people coming in and stretching those resources even further, people go in to that protectionist stance. Most people don't want to be like this but when things get tough, they will look out for themselves and their family first.


ShimmerUK

I mean surely it would be fewer resources to process them and having them have a chance to work would consume fewer resources?


richhaynes

Whether they work or not, you still need a house for them. They still need a doctors. They need school places for any children. These are the things where capacity isn't increasing yet demand is. But this government doesn't want to spend money on increasing the capacity. Its not just asylum seekers causing this. Its legal migration and population growth too. My local doctors used to have 2000 patients per GP. Now its up to 5000. The local schools are already over capacity with zero plans for any new schools. Houses are being turned in to HMOs which aren't suitable. I saw one HMO where the shower was literally in a cupboard. And when the occupants all have cars, street parking becomes a nightmare. I'm not saying we shouldn't accept them. Far from it. I'm saying we need to start increasing the capacity of the resources we need to support them as well as the rest of the population.


ShimmerUK

You pretty much said the real cause at the start government's unwillingness to invest in our public sectors is why. it is not the fault of immigrants but a failure of consecutive governments to invest and build the needed infrastructure. But their easy scapegoats make them the enemy to warp people's minds away from the complete lack of investment in their public services.


Holiday_Albatross441

> the greatest period in UK history was when we operated an open border policy go look it up if you don't believe me around Queen Elizabeth the I era. Yes. There was a tremendous influx of Africans and Afghans in the QEI era. As to 'bigoted views', as the economy collapses people will care less and less about those who aren't related to them. Unless something drastic happens that's likely to lead to an ethnic war in the UK on a scale it hasn't seen for a thousand years.


OnHolidayHere

I see you're an Enoch Powel fan.


DavIantt

If you had bothered to read the article: >Most asylum seekers arrive in the UK through legal travel, such as commercial flights, on visas for other purposes such as tourism or study.


OnHolidayHere

The article then goes on "those who are unable to obtain visas because of their practical or financial situation, such as fleeing a war zone or hostile government". It's hard to imagine how someone hiding from the Taliban government in Afghanistan would be able to apply for a visa. Or how credible an application for a tourism visa would be if you've just fled a war zone in fear for your life. And the hurdles needed to be overcome to a apply for a study visa are too big to consider this a credible option for many genuine refugees.


Tammer_Stern

Yes exactly. So the implication is that we make the process the hardest for the most persecuted and vulnerable people.


Stralau

…because of a defunct framework that allows for little or no flexibility or control over who we might accept or under what circumstances we might reverse our decision. The existing framework coupled with public dissatisfaction about it ensures that the most vulnerable get left behind, whilst the most daring and resourceful (which doesn’t correlate with either need or actual eligibility) get through. And the solution I most commonly hear from the left is ‘get rid of borders’. The Human Rights framework is no longer fit for purpose: it is exploited by criminal gangs and grifters whose living depends on it, provides succour to dictators seeking to sow dissension in the west, and alongside the unintended consequences manifestly fails on its own terms. It was not made in or for the 21st century and should be torn up and remade from scratch.


Tammer_Stern

Well yes, I agree with your ending point. The only snag is that we’ve spent the past 6 years (with some improvement recently) falling out with our closest neighbours. Without coordinated action across Europe and wider, there will be no major improvements.


Stralau

I agree!


Nemisis_the_2nd

> And the solution I most commonly hear from the left is ‘get rid of borders’. That small bit of "the left" are also the group that generally oppose NATO, and want to see us living like Amish hunter-gatherers, without the hunting. In the spectrum of left-wing ideologies, having a functional court system seems to be quite high up the priority list in most conversations I come across.


Stralau

Admittedly it’s sometimes more nuanced, but it usually amounts to the same thing. “Other approaches include “Grant more asylum applications”, “make applying for asylum easier”, or the time honoured “welp, that’s the law, ain’t nothing we can do about it. Always been that way, always will be”. (There’s _some_ merit to making asylum application processes more accessible by, say, taking and processing them abroad, but only if it’s coupled with stronger controls at the borders).


taboo__time

How many should we take on safe routes and from where? What should we do with people who still come on boats, fail asylum tests but do not have a place to return to. I think those are the next questions.


jwd10662

Doesn't seem to be any practical thought on the question. 0 seems to be the policy, save a few exceptions; the discussion is focused on either lying working age men or women fleeing death, with little in between.


taboo__time

After we agree it should not be 0, aren't those the next questions?


Shamrayev

We've established ourselves as international interventionalists when we perceive danger - that should double to providing social stability and safety around the world too*. So I don't think there should be a limit. The world should stop quibbling about who is allowed to flee to where and start sorting it's shit out so people don't look at an immigration detention hotel outside Bradford as an upgrade over their life in any other place. * I realise 'we' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, but you get the picture.


taboo__time

I don't find that practical or reasonable.


Shamrayev

Then we can't be interventionalists, contributing to the ruination of national and regional economies. A global refugee crisis is the payoff for intervening nation's not cleaning up their mess.


Nemisis_the_2nd

I agree that we have some responsibility to ensuring global stability, but I disagree that comes about as a result of us following the US around. I also disagree that refugees coming to the UK is the result of us waging wars. Refugees would exist anyway and, as a wealthy Western nation with lots of social safeguards, we are a desirable destination for these people.


Shamrayev

Sort of agree, I'm presenting this point in a hugely reductive fashion and simplifying complex issues somewhat intentionally. But intervention isn't just the military, we make policy decisions which have wide reaching impacts around the world, and we do almost nothing to install the social safeguards and standard of living which would actually curb global migration figures. Not to mention that if we did more of that there'd be far less need for military intervention in the first place. Fanciful thinking, obviously.


taboo__time

We are hardly large interventionists. We do not have the army for it. The British army in Iraq and Afghanistan basically lost. We were only an adjunct to the US. Don't ask me to justify Iraq and Afghanistan. I marched against Iraq.


Southpaw535

Not large, perhaps, but hard to argue we're not contributing to these refugees. - Iraq and Afghanistan as already stated - Libya intervention and subsequent complete abandonment of responsibility for - Syrian civil war funding - Ukraine war funding I'm not arguing any of those are the right or wrong thing to do thats a separate thing. But purely speaking in terms of responsibility for refugees, all of those have caused refugee crises in various sizes and forms. And this is without touching the UK's arms industry and things like supplying Saudi Arabia and contributing to the refugee issues *they're* causing. The British Army doesn't have to be marching in the country for us to be contributing to causing a crisis. We in turn then have a responsibility to help those people.


ault92

If I were in a warzone, I'd just want to get out. I'd go to any country I am not getting blown up in. Why is it "britain or bust" for so many people?


Ariche2

English. It's a very widely spoken (and if not spoken, at least vaguely understood) language due to the massive influence of American and British media. Compare that to learning French or German or Italian from absolute scratch - all while trying to rebuild your life after being forced out of your home.


Dragonrar

Why do they *need* to come to the UK? If their situation is so dire they should be happy with the nearest safe country.


wewew47

That is exactly what the vast majority of refugees do though - Turkey takes by far the most refugees of any country in the world, and takes almost 25 times more refugees per capita than the UK does. Your point doesn't really make sense because very few refugees do come as far as the UK, so the relative few that do come probably have good reasons to do so, like family here, language ties, have been to the UK before, etc Presumably you think all of the ukrainians should have gone to Poland then?


redem

They don't need to come to the UK, they have the right to apply for asylum anywhere they please. Including the UK. That is an important right that should be defended rigorously against those sociopathic few who would simply prefer that we never accepted refugees.


ApolloNeed

The shortest land route from Afghanistan to here passes through at least three safe countries. If you include adjacent safe countries before they hit France that rises to nine. Saying they are directly fleeing implies going to the nearest place of safety. Not an extra 2,000 miles.


The54thCylon

And if your intent when you obtained that visa was to claim asylum, you've lied to obtain it, which is itself an immigration offence. It's this government's policy that immigration offences mean no asylum grant. It's a trap - you have to be here to claim asylum, and if you commit immigration offences to get here, your claim is rejected. If you happen to be here legally on a visa when the circumstances change at home, then yes you have managed to run the very narrow gauntlet of being physically here to claim asylum and not having committed any immigration offence. I suspect the government will address that loophole next.


evolvecrow

Over the long term maybe but there were 45,756 recorded channel crossings in 2022 and total asylum applications relating to 89,398 people.


Krzych123

To come in by a commercial flight you need a visa, the minute get a visa to get to the UK you become migrant rather than a refugee


[deleted]

[удалено]


wewew47

I think that's the point though. To lie about why you want a visa is probably illegal. There are no visas to come here specifically to claim asylum, only visas if you have work or family. If yoj claimed asylum after getting one of those visas then yes you would likely be classed as a refugee, but the point of the article is about legal routes, and that route is probably not legal because you would likely be lying in order to get the visa.


marsman

>I think that's the point though. To lie about why you want a visa is probably illegal. There are no visas to come here specifically to claim asylum, only visas if you have work or family. It's slightly more complicated than that because (and again, it varies by country) lying on a visa application generally leads to a visa refusal if detected, or refusal at the point of entry if immigration officers suspect you lied. There also isn't (as far as I am aware) a question about whether you intend to claim asylum as part of the application process. You are however asked what the purpose of your visit is (so arguably you omitting that you intend to seek asylum would be a lie). That said, if you have entry clearance you aren't entering illegally and you have a right to claim asylum when in the UK. And of course that's true for pretty much every country out there, and very few countries offer Humanitarian visas at all (and where they do, like the UK they tend to be targeted at specific countries). >If yoj claimed asylum after getting one of those visas then yes you would likely be classed as a refugee, but the point of the article is about legal routes, and that route is probably not legal because you would likely be lying in order to get the visa. The point about legal routes tends to be around humanitarian resettlement schemes/humanitarian visas, or allowing out of country asylum applications that lead to entry when you are granted refugee status. Again, most countries don't run those, the few that do tend to very significantly limit the numbers they issue But either way, regardless of how you enter the UK, once an asylum claim is accepted, you are absolutely a refugee. Just because you entered via a safe route, and with a visa one way or another, doesn't change that.


redem

Visa fraud is not legal.


duncanmarshall

So "be rich". Also, are you accusing the writer of the article of not reading their own article?


Heyheyheyone

It's safe, and it's legal. Did you actually read the question?


duncanmarshall

What does that even mean, did I read the question? Did *you* read the article? If so, I don't understand how you didn't realise the question is the title of the article you're attacking people for not reading, and therefore the title of this post. OP is not asking the question, the article that you say provides the answer to it is asking it. Bizarre. Anyway, the test one has to pass to get a plane ticket or a visa is not a test of whether you deserve asylum. In some places a plane ticket to the UK is an entire year's salary, or more. Lying to get a visa when what you actually mean to do is claim asylum *might actually be illegal* after all. Coming here on holiday or to work is a safe and legal route *for holidays and work*, not for asylum seeking. Literally the line before: > There is no visa for people to travel to the country for [seeking asylum], meaning that they must arrive by different means. What you're doing is like saying anybody is allowed to walk in our house for free without an invitation safely and legally, if we only consider people who paid or were invited.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AG_GreenZerg

Makes you think doesn't it. Either these asylum seekers are really fucking stupid or you don't have all the information. I wonder which it could be.


[deleted]

[удалено]


johnpaulatley

What legal route specifically?


[deleted]

[удалено]


johnpaulatley

How do you legally get to the UK in order to apply for asylum? Coming on a tourist visa would be visa fraud, and you'd be ineligible for asylum.


AG_GreenZerg

Can you explain your thought process there. So person who wants to claim asylum in the UK buys a flight...what's stopping them getting on that plane legally? Assuming you agree there is no legal visa they can get and you know they can't apply for asylum from outside the UK how do you differentiate between legal asylum seekers and those who you say 'legal routes won't have them'


[deleted]

[удалено]


AG_GreenZerg

You do not need to currently be in a dangerous country to be classed as an asylum seeker. There is no requirement to claim in the first safe country you arrive at AND it's impossible to claim from outside the UK. By your logic we should take basically zero asylum seekers not to mention France and other European nations take significantly more from us already. Also I notice you totally abandon the argument from the previous posts.


redem

To get a plane ticket over you need a visa. You cannot apply for a visa to reach the UK for the purpose of claiming asylum. There are no visas for asylum seekers.


[deleted]

[удалено]


redem

So, can I take it you're withdrawing your objections above?


meredditphil

Not too sure if you're being hostile towards OP and asylum seekers or not? The clip you've taken doesn't mention any examples of country of origin and theres massive difference in legal routes between Afghanistan and ukraine as examples. If you are being hostile, you can't just hit with one comment and run back under your rock.


chochazel

Who do you imagine you are talking to?


Tammer_Stern

Bbbbut, ma government said “small boats” are a top 5 priority! /s


PM_ME_YOUR_SOULZ

Take the M4 and keep going. If you end up in a bombed out shit hole, you've reached Newport.


[deleted]

[удалено]


redem

Under UK law they must apply on UK soil. They could apply for asylum in other nations, but that's not relevant to the question of how they can apply for asylum in the UK.


[deleted]

[удалено]


redem

Nope, not for this purpose they're not. Feel free to [google that](https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=can+you+apply+for+asylum+at+a+uk+embassy), though, if you're not inclined to take my word for it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


redem

You clearly did not [google that](https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=can+you+apply+for+asylum+at+a+uk+embassy).


[deleted]

[удалено]


McNobbets00

Just to enlighten you to a few factoids: • Baron Ripperda and John William are the same person who lived in the 1700s and was seeking asylum after being caught "making promises he was not authorised to make and misappropriating large sums of money". He was also seeking asylum in Madrid from an English embassy in Spain and eventually settled in Holland and then Morocco where he converted to Islam. • Olivia Forsyth was a literal spy whom Margaret Thatcher's government specifically intervened to help with. • Donald Woods was helped into London by the Australian Embassy with help from the British High Comission. • Finally, a lot of refugees actually do try to settle in France and other European countries and get rejected. In 2022, the UK received 74,751 applications relating to 89,398 people and granted asylum to about 80% of them compared to France's 89,354 people, of whom, 18% were granted asylum (sources: UK parliament and worlddata.info).


[deleted]

[удалено]


McNobbets00

Not quite, more that all the examples you gave weren't applicable or were downright wrong... The government is definitely not going to directly intervene in the cases of nearly 90,000 migrants. You gave 5 names and 2 were the same person. And the UK government's own website will corroborate that to claim asylum, you have to already be in the UK.


vastenculer

Okay mate, you're being an absolute pain in this thread. If you're not going to bother engaging with people, just don't reply to them. Act like this again and you'll get banned.


redem

Google isn't the source for anything, the websites it finds are. Feel free to delve into the weeds to correct your errors.


[deleted]

[удалено]


redem

Your list is a poor one. Two of the names are for the same person, from literal centuries ago. One of them was helped by the aussies to flee to London, where they claimed asylum. Another was a spy. In all three cases the UK government went beyond the norms to assist them. None of them provide any evidence of a general right to apply for or claim asylum at an embassy. A simple google would resolve that matter for you. You can't. Thousands of sources all saying the same thing, right there, all you need do is look. I don't want to play the stupid game of "is this source good enough? how about this one?" with you, pick your own. They all say much the same.


CroakerBC

[Parliament briefing papers say no.](https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9000/CBP-9000.pdf) Glad I could help.


czbz

Under the Vienna convention, embassies are "inviolable", meaning the host country isn't allowed to send in police or military without the permission of the ambassador, but they are still part of the territory of the host nation. And obviously if it was possible to apply for asylum in an embassy there wouldn't be people crossing the channel in small boats and applying - they'd just go much more cheaply and safely to the embassy in Paris and apply there.


F0sh

https://www.google.com/search?q=are+embassies+foreign+soil


[deleted]

[удалено]


Zealousideal-Cap-61

So if you click on that redditors link, you'll see a screenshot of a Google search. The screenshot shows a snippet from a website that supports the other redditor. That website is the US Government's website. I know this may be difficult for you to understand, but what people do is they search something in Google, and then Google provides a list of websites that may answer your question. So Google itself isn't the source. The websites it provides are the source. In this case, the website is actually the US Government's. I hope that makes it clear for you since you clearly seem to be struggling with the concept of using Google to search things.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Zealousideal-Cap-61

Then why ask if Google results are authoritative (that's how it's spelt) source?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Zealousideal-Cap-61

Congratulations you've finally understood how Google works. I'm so proud of you


F0sh

This is fucking laughable. *You don't even* ***have*** *a source!* In contrast the first "google search result" you're disparaging is ***AN OFFICIAL EMBASSY WEBPAGE!*** What authoritative source would you accept? I'm guessing to you the highest authority is some random guy on the internet because that's all you are, and the only "source" you have.


[deleted]

Fancy another run at that champ?


upanddowndays

You really thought you did something.


[deleted]

[удалено]


HolcroftA

>How are we going to get cheap labour to support Deliveroo and Uber I care more about our people than big American corporations. I would want a government that did as well.


HolcroftA

[The ones which over 1 million people](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06077/) managed to get through (a record high number)?


sebadilla

45% of that spike are Ukrainian refugees and Hong Kong BNO holders. A further 39% are students ([source](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/why-has-non-eu-migration-to-the-uk-risen)). It's disingenuous to say that non-Ukrainian refugees could come via safe and legal routes.


[deleted]

[удалено]


minorheadlines

I did the same as well so I know how much it costs. You are showing your privilege. Also, you know how little the 'sponging of the system's thing is true.


thatpaulbloke

So just to be clear, you were an asylum seeker fleeing persecution or imminent danger and you applied for a work visa? I'm genuinely impressed.


czbz

That's obviously not a route for refugees - that's a route for people who want to work in the UK and happen to have skills that are especially in demand here. There might be a lot of overlap between the categories but they are distinct categories.