What would you do about immigration?

@stateofthem I agree our current system is ludicrous.

We already have legal immigration routes for refugees (e.g. ARP), which involve a scheme from the country that they are unsafe in.

We then have other migrant routes e.g. student visas, working visas etc...

THESE should be the only routes for immigration. Anyone entering the UK via other means should be deported or imprisoned.

Also, those on migration schemes for work/studying should speak a good level of English. Anyone applying for permanent residency should have to pass and English language test (including spouses).

(There are far too many people in the UK that have lived here a long time that speak very little English - the same should also apply to English people wanting to live abroad - learn the language!!).

As for benefits, they should be available for those who contribute to our society regardless of nationality. If you've paid in, then you should be able to claim.

A friend of mine moved to Australia a few years ago and he has T1 diabetes, so had to jump through lots of hoops to prove that his medical condition would not cost the country money. He worked in engineering so had a skill the country wanted. Australia has the right idea.

The fact you need to be on British soil means that those most vulnerable and in need of asylum can't get it. E.g. women in Afghanistan under the Taliban. It means we're completely disproportionately overwhelmed with a wave of fit young men - such an imbalance is never going to be good for society.

We have nearly a million NEETs, rising unemployment, thousands of graduates and older people who are struggling to find work, skyrocketing rents and housing costs, reduced wealth per capita.

Me too. That poster certainly doesn't speak for everyone.

I'd like to see employing anyone staying illegally made very difficult, and ditto getting work if you're here illegally. ID cards, and temporary work permits for those claiming asylum. Punitive fines/business closures for those who employ without these, and increased funding for checks and policing of this.

So if its hard work ... we must get immigrants to do it (which is the same idea as Zack Polanski came out with, he didn't want to wipe bums for a living).

The reason that's its not solved is because there is no will to solve it. There's a lot of vested interests in the current dysfunctional system. Employers looking for cheap labour, politicians looking for votes, unscrupulous landlords, criminals and lawyers on a never ending gravy train.

As more people are dying than being born in the UK we really do need immigration.

It helps the economy.

Anybody who does not agree with this is either racist or ill informed.

This.

Apparently 406,824 student visas and 19,647 dependants just for 2025. Also around 15,000 students claimed asylum last year.

My favourite thing about the ridiculousness of this argument was the recent rioting for 'women's safety' in our area was carried out by a load of local men - almost half of whom had convictions for violence against women.

All of the young asylum seeking men I work with are concerned for the welfare of women and are trying to get their female relatives out of an oppressive regime because they are trying to get away from the same extremism that creates violence towards women.

I also think it's highly ironic that you'd say you care about women when what you mean is white local women given that a few minutes ago you said you'd oppose safe passage for women and girls fleeing violence. And therein lies the rub.

Who is "we"?

I want people genuinely seeking asylum from war torn/difficult environments in their home countries to be able to come here to work and contribute to society.

So I agree with the OP that there should be a safe way of seeking asylum without getting on a boat. Once that exists, then I would say asylum never granted if you enter the country illegally.

What do you consider a 'proper channel' to apply for asylum. Do you mean use agents because we can see how that would be abused. Or do you open up 'Apply for Britain' centres in selected countries around the world? The queues would be horrendous and how do we turn people away when we are filling up the country with those who are seen as eligible?

What about those we don't want as there are European courts who would overrule our decision to reject these people.

When a person is accepted, do we then have to accept their families or is it just the one person who is eligible? What do we do when they jump in a small boat anyway because we have rejected their 'proper channel' application?

The best thing to do is make the UK less attractive for illegal immigration by stating if you come illegally you will never set foot in the UK and take them offshore.

The biggest issue I can see is that we’re trying to apply national solutions to what is an international problem. Much of the current convention was brought in not long after WW2, and the world is not the same place it was then. The UN and its various arms are in desperate need to reform; some areas need strengthening, some need scrapping altogether or replacing in a different form. As it stands at the moment you can have a UN special rapporteur telling a developed country with good human rights that they’re dreadfully beastly for not doing something that benefits said rapporteurs personal hobby horse, while on the flip side whole UN special councils on things such as women rights are being headed by appallingly misogynistic countries just because it’s their turn. It’s a shitshow.
Back in the late 40s/early 50s economic migration was much smaller scale because travel was far more expensive and wasn’t as easy, communications likewise. Those fleeing were more likely to be whole family units or women with children, not the influx of majority young men we see now.
Tinkering at the edges won’t solve the problem, the whole international asylum system needs completely rebuilding from the bottom up and based on pure pragmatism, not the regressive ‘blood and soil’ nationalism nor the fluffy kum by yah Utopianism we’re currently plagued by.

The whole thing has become a racket. I think the East European countries like Poland have got the measure of this. They don't accept asylum seekers or very very few, apart from temporary refuge to Ukrainians.

We could support people through our foreign aid budget to work to improve their own countries. The current system doesn't help anyone, apart from lawyers, criminals and employers who want a bottomless pit of cheap labour.

I do not approve of replacing Bad sex segregation by the Taliban with Good sex segregation by the Brits.

Brown men are demonised and brown women are patronised.

Maybe more British men will get Afghan wives, sex workers, or cleaners if the men do not come?

Please, have some respect.

Boys may be gay, autistic, proto feminist allies, or all sorts. They deserve to travel with their mums.

I'm not being funny but care work is hard work. I know i personally couldn't do it.

I agree we need to look at overall wage rises in the UK in line with COL but most people on benefits who don't work at all are on benefits due to long term illness/disability which isn't going to change or be suitable for the likes of care work, or they have much more complex needs going on in the background. There are plenty of services out there to get local people into employment and off benefits or reduced benefits but it's highly complex in most cases. If it was an easy solve it would have been done already.

Lorries were pre Brexit. 2002 was particularly high.

There is no credible evidence the refugees are more of a threat to women than British men, and a HUGE amount to evidence to show that refugees are victims of crime far more than perpetrators.

As caused by Brexit.

I think this is an interesting thread and one thing it shows is that there are no easy answers.

Neither the Tories nor Labour have been able to easily solve this issue, and Reform won't be able to either.

Not that we shouldn't try to think of innovative solutions. But Reform and their supporters seem to think just shouting "Stop the boats" will solve the issue, when it won't.

I'd make it safer and easier, that's what I'd do.

All welcome, it's a free world. Borders are imaginary lines 🤗

Really helpful insight. Thank you.

Look at the result, protect our women.

YOU don't want them. I think that any country that wants to think of itself as civilised should welcome and support refugees.

There are also significant challenges for women who travel with men to integrate. They are also more vulnerable to domestic abuse, find access to services less accessible and are more at risk of being siphoned into exploitation and trafficking.

Of course that's not going to apply to all asylum seeking women and of course there will be many men who are fabulous, caring husbands. But there are specific vulnerabilities that apply to asylum seeking women that are more complex.

I didn't say that other pathways shouldn't be available, just that some women centric pathways should be available. It's much harder for women to safely travel, there are flaws with the family reunification process and its lengthy. Plus we know for some women they're at significant risk in their native country while waiting for reunification which is a time limited process. I work with women seeking asylum and all of them at some point have experienced very significant abuse and trauma along the way because they needed to leave but had no safe way to do so. This also happens to many men, but it's noticibly worse/ more common for women. So I do think there's a need there. The current system means separating them anyway as young men often travel first due to these very risks. The young women who I work with who have travelled alone have benefitted from making support networks quickly because as you say, it's difficult for them. Many are also highly motivated for education and training because they weren't previously able to access that in their home countries so I think it's right to take as many barriers away from them making those connections as possible. It also opens safer passage for women and children who maybe don't have a male relative fit to accompany them or go ahead without them.

The point of promoting integration at point of arrival is more about supporting women to get on their feet and have support which gives security than just being here in a hostile system on benefits. We know that doesn't work for people and is usually very detrimental for mental health. All of the asylum seekers I work with are incredibly frustrated that they can't work and we know there are issues with siloed social networks.

I would focus enforcement on employers who hire people without authorization to work. The employers don’t have any incentive to take risk beyond profit. People will be less likely to enter or stay illegally if they can’t find work.

for people trying to do things properly, streamline the process. I’ve known people who did everything right and had highly paid corporately sponsored immigration attorneys working on their behalf lose their legal status because of delays that were in no way their fault. They did every renewal as soon as possible and every form was filled out perfectly, but their packet just sat in the bottom of a pile past their expiration date.