What would you do about immigration?

Afghanistan. ARP scheme. I think it has now closed but they are processing some of the cases still.

I taught in a a school which had several refugees that came to the UK this way, hence familiar with this scheme.

There was/is also a scheme for Ukrainian refugees.

Most countries make provisions to take refugees from war torn countries.

A boy becomes a man at 18 as he is then an adult. I understand that creates a difficult situation at that stage but life will always have cut offs at some point to try to prioritise those who are more vulnerable. As long as there are other open means for seeking asylum then families who want to travel as a group or with older teens could utilise those avenues instead like I said.

"What if he is assumed to be older because non-white children tend to be adultified?" This would be investigated and need to be proven by the home office to be the case as is the process currently anyway if its suspected that someone has given an incorrect date of birth. It's why it's so important that professionals working with unaccompanied or newcomer children are trained to address unconscious bias. This is something I've come across before and called people out on before.

"What if he is older and his family naturally lie about his age to get him to safety and they are found out...and treated like liars, not like desperate folk?"

Again, this is not uncommon in the asylum process and the home office is aware that people do this for valid reasons related to trauma, this would also be argued by a solicitor specialising in that type of law. There are plenty of people asylum seekers come across who give bad advice so this is not a new thing. Creating a safer route may make it less likely that people would feel the need to lie because there's an accessible pathway for women and children or families with adult men. When you're reliant on spending a huge amount of what's often family money, that only serves to increase the desperation people feel to be successful in their application because they've often sunk huge amounts of family savings into being trafficked out. Having an accessible route would also possibly connect people to more solid and reliable legal advice on the process so they can make more informed decisions.

British patriarchy will unfortunately thrive irregardless let's be honest, we live in a society that's intentionally structured against women, particularly women from minority/global majority or marginalised groups. But truthfully I'm not sure there's a way to solve that without dismantling much wider structures which is inter generational work. I do think it's important to try to create space and safety for women most impacted by those barriers though. Especially those as I say who don't have male relatives who can support them and who are at immediate risk. We already have very disproportionate numbers is my point. I'm talking about finding ways to balance that not simply flip it.

Agree…but after 4 months in hospital..my experience of carers from Romania, Phillipines, many African countries, India and more was that they were spectacularly caring often qualified as midwives etc…really astounding people. I’m forever grateful they would suffer 12 hour shifts with an hour travel each way …so much good…food, vibrancy and more comes from immigration and has done for 100s of years. The world is globalised

Other working people are not my enemy and falling for that divide and rule is really sad

My suggestion would be to throw all the racist Reform / BNP / fascists out. God knows who'd want 'em but they could join their mates on the Costas, Dubai and in Asia. That would make a lot of extra room for hard working, tax paying individuals who don't want to exist solely on benefits and who value education and are happy to work in jobs the lazy racists think are beneath them.

It’s the same here language tests and proof of ability to support self i.e. money in the bank

This all exists. Asylum seekers cannot work…they are on very low sums …not UK mainstream benefits..lower

Can you let us know which of the provisions and protections of the ECHR (set up by Britain) you'd particularly like to see removed ?

Have you got stats to back up that most do not work? Do you mean after asylum is granted?

Or me

When does a boy become a man? At 13? 16? 18? What if he is assumed to be older because non-white children tend to be adultified? What if he is older and his family naturally lie about his age to get him to safety and they are found out...and treated like liars, not like desperate folk?

Yes, you have specialist knowledge of the system and you help people. Great. I respect that.

But look at this thread and at the wider UK culture and you will see what I mean regarding gender stereotypes, and lack of respect for the integrity of brown family lives.

And dividing women from men and bringing them in disproportionate numbers will serve British patriarchy one way or another, sorry.

I agree!

Which countries have a legal route for refugees to the UK?

I agree about this. Unfortunately, economic migrants tend to be men. Harder for women to get out of places like Afghanistan, and generally women tend to flee when the physical costs are greater than staying. The process of coming on a small boat probably wouldn't necessarily feel safer to many, even compared to living under the persecution of the Taliban.

Let's spell it out here : most of the problem is NOT from 'immigrants' per se, it's from immigrant MEN. Men are not the default person. It should be spelt out. 'Immigrant MEN'. Immigrant WOMEN are not the problem.

“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”

Immigrants are working in care because they want to live in the UK and that is where the jobs are. Few people choose to work in care because they are kind and compassionate.

yes for them that work,most do not or they work the bare minimum and claim uc.

Asylum seekers are a small percentage of overall immigration. Asylum seekers also get less than basic rate UC to live on. Its pittance. If you think people are coming for something like £45 a week, unsuitable accommodation and not being allowed to work then you need to consider what they must have been coming from. It also costs a lot to be trafficked.

My view stop supporting wars, regime change, resource exploitation in the countries then destabilised which refugees flee from.

Educate the public …”no resource to public funds”, due process, current regrettable no right to work. The reliance of our whole country on immigration…whole sectors would collapse without it…care, NHS and more.

Immigrants are coming in the vast majority because of the financial assistance. Many are not genuine asylum seekers. There should be a proper immigration procedure. If you are not accepted, you cant get entry, you won’t get benefits, free health care, or be able to work, or procure a NiNo
If I want to emmigrate to Canada, for example, I have to prove I speak the language, (a test with a fee), prove my qualifications with a fee(WES), pass a medical, prove I have no criminal record. Prove I have sufficient funds to survive until I get settled & get work & a whole list of other admin. & then PAY a considerable fee to IRCC.
Then I wait … & I may or may not get accepted.

You sound very sensible to me.

Also a lot of people claiming there is 'ill-will' towards immigrants is deliberately missing the point that it's the young men who rape children that people don't want and there are a lot of them. We have enough of our own rapists thanks, we don't need to add to the abuse of children. I think it's clear that if there were hotels full of Afghan women and their children the attitudes, in general, would be very different as they don't pose the same risk.

They'd also be far more likely to take up care jobs. Care jobs are disproportionately done by women. Agree with PP who said that forcing people to do care jobs is a bad idea - it will end with abuse of those being cared for. It's a difficult job and not everyone should do it.

I'm not saying we need to get immigrants to do work people don't want to do here but I'm saying that suggesting it should be British people in British jobs and off benefits is not a straightforward answer.

Let’s be honest here, that is just a vacuous fluffy soundbite and a batshit way of dealing with the issue. Have you even given it more than 15 seconds thought?
In a world without borders, how can you have a welfare state? How can you have free at the point of use healthcare? How will you prevent international organised crime? How will you prevent people trafficking? How will you enforce law?
How will you prevent exploitation? How will you collect taxes to pay for any of it?
As it currently stands a world without borders would turn into a two tier dystopian shit hole very quickly indeed.
It’ll be Hunger Games, not Star Trek.

Yes, another racket that the dysfunctional immigration system is propping up.

The government need to have swift processes for determining whether someone is eligible to stay in the UK or not.
If we could turn around eligibility in 3 months then the immigrants who were allowed to stay could get jobs and get on with their lives which is what the majority want.

Why wouldn't boys come when I said women and children? That would also create safe passage for children who have lost their families. Did I not literally just say that the young men I work with are opposed to anti feminist regimes?

"Maybe more British men will get Afghan wives, sex workers, or cleaners if the men do not come?" Where in the fuck did I say anything like this??? And why only Afghan women? If you come to a new country seeking asylum after trauma you need structured support to get on your feet because it is difficult, that's not patronising it's fact. There is currently wholly inadequate support for people seeking asylum here and their independence is actively suppressed by the home office refusing to allow them to work and earn while they have to wait years for approval on their application.

Where is the sex segregation if men still have pathways to seek asylum? Why are you opposed to removing barriers that make it harder for solo female asylum seekers and children at risk to get here safely?