Page 12 | What would you do about immigration?

stateofthem · 2026-05-07T11:59:42+00:00

I’ve seen an awful lot of political posts here recently, generally displeased with labour (other policies are for a separate thread) and taking hard stances on immigration. I often feel as though people have a very blinkered view on immigration which does sway the argument. It seems to be either “let everyone in” or “let no one in” as such. One point I wish to make is that currently you must be in the UK to be able to make an asylum claim. This (in my opinion) is the biggest factor in small boats/mass migration. If I were in charge I would propose the following: Re-implement the ability to seek asylum from abroad via one safe legal channel. Enforce that applications must be made via this route (obviously with concessions for no internet, poor English etc). Applications are reviewed on a case by case basis, and if rejected, a person is placed onto a register explaining the reason for rejection (and possibly a timescale of when they could reapply). Anyone who does not follow this channel is returned to their country of origin. Anyone who arrives having not followed this policy is returned to their country of origin. I appreciate that the above would need a lot of work and investment, and it’s not quite as straightforward as how I set it out, but I feel as if it’s a reasonable response which allows some migrants but not uncontrolled. at the moment it feels as though both sides of the coin are offering very extreme solutions either way, and I feel as though someone needs to offer a more reasonable and middle way approach. I am interested to hear others opinions on this, and if you disagree, what would you do instead?

DeftGoldHedgehog · 07/05/2026 13:24

First of all have a honest national debate about it- particularly that we might need more younger people to balance our ageing population!

coulditbeme2323 · 07/05/2026 13:23

stateofthem · 07/05/2026 13:22

But how do you determine who has come over here “illegal”? You must be in the country to start a claim, so technically they are not illegal until said claim is denied

Show quote history

If you come over on a boat or back of a lorry.

Original poster

stateofthem · 07/05/2026 13:22

coulditbeme2323 · 07/05/2026 13:19

If you come over here illegal, you are going to a detention center pending deportation.

No ifs no buts.

But how do you determine who has come over here “illegal”? You must be in the country to start a claim, so technically they are not illegal until said claim is denied

OP posts:

BeasKnee · 07/05/2026 13:22

If the aim is to reduce immigration, I don't see how having ways to seek asylum from abroad will do that. There are millions of people around the world in poverty, danger and being persecuted. Unless there was also a quota of people to take in via asylum every year then I can't imagine that would do anything but increase applications. I guess those asylum seekers wouldn't be here while the application is being looked at but let's be real, people who want immigration vastly reduced want fewer foreigners here full stop, regardless of whether they have been granted asylum or are waiting for their applications to be processed.

It would solve the problem of it being dangerous for the people on the boats and perhaps 'smash the gangs' to an extent but it wouldn't stop what seems like an irreversible public change of opinion against immigration.

Original poster

stateofthem · 07/05/2026 13:21

OneTealShaker · 07/05/2026 13:19

Yes never mind the vulnerability of the woman who was raped and other victims of crime while their perpetrators get to stick two fingers up at the them thanks to the ECHR.

And who says that without ECHR, our human rights would disappear overnight. ECHR did not invent human rights rights. We have a parliament. A legislature that can put laws on the statute books voted by our representatives. You know those Poole that we vote for. Pesky democracy.

Show quote history

Parliament cannot bind its successors, so just because something is passed now doesn’t mean it will always be there. It would become a lot easier to overrule things that new governments didn’t like!

OP posts:

coulditbeme2323 · 07/05/2026 13:19

If you come over here illegal, you are going to a detention center pending deportation.

No ifs no buts.

OneTealShaker · 07/05/2026 13:19

stateofthem · 07/05/2026 13:16

Must say I disagree wholeheartedly on the ECHR point though. It provides many protections which some politicians would exploit the vulnerability of if it were not in place

Show quote history

Yes never mind the vulnerability of the woman who was raped and other victims of crime while their perpetrators get to stick two fingers up at the them thanks to the ECHR.

And who says that without ECHR, our human rights would disappear overnight. ECHR did not invent human rights rights. We have a parliament. A legislature that can put laws on the statute books voted by our representatives. You know those Poole that we vote for. Pesky democracy.

Original poster

stateofthem · 07/05/2026 13:17

SpringHasSprungTheGrassIsRiz · 07/05/2026 13:15

We also need serious improvement for legitimate immigration of the sort of highly skilled tax payer who benefits this country. I am working with a colleague who earns £80k+ a year, takes nothing in terms of benefits/NHS/schooling etc from this country and is being treated appallingly as she tried to extend her visa. According to the lawyer we are receiving advice from this is becoming the norm.

Ironically, it is quicker and easier (24 hours) for a new immigrant to apply to enter the country from abroad, but takes 18 weeks+ to extend a visa in this country.

The system really is entirely broken.

Absolutely! Definite improvement needed for high skilled immigrants etc. I feel in these cases it should be such a different system and the process of renewing or extending visas is shocking!

OP posts:

Original poster

stateofthem · 07/05/2026 13:16

OneTealShaker · 07/05/2026 13:06

First thing that has to happen is a cut in welfare. Followed by a refusal to allow second rate university sector to sell student visas they can keep running the racket they are running.

We do not need low skilled immigration when we have millions on welfare refusing to work. Without a servings slashing of welfare, this problem cannot be solved.

There are lots of other things too. Leave to remain should be granted much later than 5 years and to net contributing tax paying immigrants only. No country needs immigrants who are supported by the taxpayer. Especially when we don’t have a labour shortage. We just have a shortage of willingness of people here to work.

And no asylum claims should ever be heard on shore. As well as leaving ECHR. No rapist should be allowed to appeal removal decision because their kid doesn’t like the chicken nuggets in their home country.

Edited

Must say I disagree wholeheartedly on the ECHR point though. It provides many protections which some politicians would exploit the vulnerability of if it were not in place

OP posts:

SpringHasSprungTheGrassIsRiz · 07/05/2026 13:15

We also need serious improvement for legitimate immigration of the sort of highly skilled tax payer who benefits this country. I am working with a colleague who earns £80k+ a year, takes nothing in terms of benefits/NHS/schooling etc from this country and is being treated appallingly as she tried to extend her visa. According to the lawyer we are receiving advice from this is becoming the norm.

Ironically, it is quicker and easier (24 hours) for a new immigrant to apply to enter the country from abroad, but takes 18 weeks+ to extend a visa in this country.

The system really is entirely broken.

Original poster

stateofthem · 07/05/2026 13:15

OneTealShaker · 07/05/2026 13:06

First thing that has to happen is a cut in welfare. Followed by a refusal to allow second rate university sector to sell student visas they can keep running the racket they are running.

We do not need low skilled immigration when we have millions on welfare refusing to work. Without a servings slashing of welfare, this problem cannot be solved.

There are lots of other things too. Leave to remain should be granted much later than 5 years and to net contributing tax paying immigrants only. No country needs immigrants who are supported by the taxpayer. Especially when we don’t have a labour shortage. We just have a shortage of willingness of people here to work.

And no asylum claims should ever be heard on shore. As well as leaving ECHR. No rapist should be allowed to appeal removal decision because their kid doesn’t like the chicken nuggets in their home country.

Edited

I agree on the welfare aspect if you mean cutting funds for those out of work by choice etc. I don’t think that we should penalise those who are genuinely disabled etc, and I find those groups are usually left with the brunt to bear from a lot of cuts etc.

So, assuming disabled people are removed from this equation I would personally propose:

Those on jobseeker benefits to be required to fulfil 30 hours per week of community service or charity work - to be signed off by a member of this organisation personally each week. (I appreciate there would need to be things done to ensure no corruption here).

Total reform on the issues around working a certain number of hours reducing benefits, meaning people don’t work (or work little hours) as they can earn more on benefits. This should not happen.

The above said, I often see that the vast majority of work posts needed are in care. I would never want someone to work in care who didn’t want to, not least as they would likely provide some substandard care. I’d much rather know my mum was being cared for by an immigrant who wants to care and will offer kindness and compassion, than an English person who will be full of resentment. I know there’s no easy fix to that aspect, but I really do feel that those out of work (or anyone really) shouldn’t be forced into care roles as ultimately those receiving the care would suffer.

OP posts:

OneTealShaker · 07/05/2026 13:06

First thing that has to happen is a cut in welfare. Followed by a refusal to allow second rate university sector to sell student visas they can keep running the racket they are running.

We do not need low skilled immigration when we have millions on welfare refusing to work. Without a servings slashing of welfare, this problem cannot be solved.

There are lots of other things too. Leave to remain should be granted much later than 5 years and to net contributing tax paying immigrants only. No country needs immigrants who are supported by the taxpayer. Especially when we don’t have a labour shortage. We just have a shortage of willingness of people here to work.

And no asylum claims should ever be heard on shore. As well as leaving ECHR. No rapist should be allowed to appeal removal decision because their kid doesn’t like the chicken nuggets in their home country.