What would you do about immigration?

I don’t know what the answer is but I wish I could talk openly about how hard some types of immigration can be to live with.
I live in a poor diverse area, it’s always been this way and mostly hasn’t been a problem. Some communities settled in the area a long time ago and integrated well.
We have more recent high immigration in the area that I assume is economic migration? They seem to hate the country but are perhaps just here to make money and send it home? Obviously this wouldn’t be a problem if they didn’t engage in such anti social behaviour. Issues include drinking in the streets, setting off fireworks in the streets, blocking resident drives and generally not following parking regulations. Having loud parties, littering and fly tipping. Combined with the fact that they rent and don’t care about the property it can make for a miserable neighbourhood. Although I am fully aware that bad landlords don’t help either.

I know that people will say that anyone can display this behaviour and that is true. However when you try and talk to them about it and they don’t speak English it is so hard to resolve any problems. I just feel like I am living in a hostile environment next to people who don’t care about the area and aren’t invested in it. My long term neighbours who are all from different ethnic backgrounds feel the same.

If I ever voice these opinions I am just viewed as racist.

Because doing that rather than going through proper channel s should lead to automatic dentition and femoval

It wouldn’t reduce trafficking unless you can meet the requirement of everyone who would want to be here and who meets the criteria.

I heard a similar story of a Kiwi who is going home because they can't get sponsors etc despite earning way into the higher rate tax bracket. Very much part of the anglosphere, loves this country, loves our customs and loves our people, yet they're being slung out on their arse. Yet we seem ok to indefinitely support entire families who will never be contributors, and want to silo themselves, or even take an active dislike to our society and have a very different values system.

Completely arse about face.

But the immigrants providing the care are not necessarily caring and compassionate. They are usually coming from countries where there are no out of work benefits so their choice is either to work or starve.

I think it would be better if we invested in care work, improved wages and conditions and supported Brits to do the work. If you factored in the saving on welfare, it might even be cost effective.

I worked in the asylum system for 6 eye-opening years.

The biggest area of reform are the asylum courts and lawyers.

Lawyers want cases to appeal as they will get twice the pay. Small aspects of evidence is regularly withheld in order for it to be then provided and an appeal based on.

Appeals courts overturn the majority of negative decisions. Appeals clog up the courts so everyone waits too long. That doesn't seem like a system that is working.

Interpreters that work for the lawyers are not professional. I have heard recordered calls with interpreters where the interpreter is adding their own information.

And then when someone gets a negative decision they have all support removed but were rarely detained or deported. Just left to sofa surf or put in a new claim or enter the grey/black economy.

Lastly, most people I worked with worked illegally in some capacity (nail bar/car wash/ deliveroo/ even sex work). If asylum seekers were allowed to work legally many of them would - and pay tax. They do in germany and other countries.

Also brexit needs to be undone. When we could no longer access european data on asylum we lost the ability to see that Mr X had applied and been refused in Germany and should be deported. That was a quick way to deport people who were serial applicants.

The migrants aren't coming for the fun of it. They come for work and opportunity (and potentially benefits). ID cards and HMRC funded to clamp down on off the books employers would go a long way to help. There are reasons economic migrants go to the UK and dont stay in Germany or France.
Application for refugee status should be via the nearest safe Embassy. No country wants to be Britain's off shore processing hub.

There is already a limited 'one in one out' trial scheme with France so I assume that means it's possible for it to be done legally.

You speak for yourself. You may know others who agree with you but in discussion like this it's not appropriate to be presenting opinion as fact when lots of people feel differently on it. I expect people to feel differently to me but I would never pretend to speak for everyone or present myself as such.

Racist, really?
I suppose you are in favour of subjugation of women, FGM, cousin marriage, ‘honour’ killings, and other backwards practices then?

If being against those makes me a racist then that is why that insult no longer has any power over many of us.

Pathetic.

On students, it is only since 2024 that rules were tightened up on bringing dependents, and the fact is nobody knows how many stay on illegally because nobody is bloody counting!

@FeistyFrankie you need to provide evidence for your assertion.

Dig around in here and see what conclusion you come to:

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/student-migration-to-the-uk/

This sounds terrible. Who among us would want to travel on those terms? It is swapping one oppression for another.

You know there are some loving and supportive Afghan men, right?

I witness so much bullying of brown women and physical attacks on their businesses in my city. Why isolate them from loved ones?

Legally you cannot return someone who has arrived by small boat and claimed asylum. This is a breach of human rights law. Same as 'push backs' where small boats are denied entry or given fuel for a return journey is illegal.

Yes, well, the Brits invented concentration camps after all. Just dust down the concept and herd the buggers in eh 🙄

Of course it won't stop it completely, but it will reduce human trafficking if there is a safer and more accessible option.

I also think it's really important when we're having this discussion to be clear on language- if someone arrives by small boat and claims asylum that is NOT illegal immigration and should not be classed as such. They have entered the country perfectly legally doing it in this way.

If they enter by small boat and then decide not to claim asylum that is illegal immigration.

I can't see how creating legal routes for people to claim asylum would solve the issue of 'small boats' unless the legal routes were uncapped (which would be political suicide). If the legal route is capped then people would still try to get here via the current illegal routes when they are unable to get here legally. Unless, that is, we have a returns agreement with France.

The only way I see this working is that we agree a quota with the EU and we accept that many people via applications made in the EU. Then, every person who makes their way here via other routes gets returned to France. People will stop paying traffickers to get to the UK on a boat if they know they will get returned.

The flaw in my wonderful plan is that I suspect that the number of asylum seekers we would need to accept would be too high for most peoples liking.

Could the demand be met, if you envisage how many would apply.

The country needs immigration to sustain and boost the economy. It needs to process everyone quickly and get people working or return as applicable

So would married Afghan women have to live as widows or as divorcées or as bigamists, if their husbands cannot accompany them?

I totally understand why the men come here, by the way. They are heroes and pioneers trying to make a way in life. They may not think that women are safe or respected in the UK, and they might not want them to risk the journey without a home to go to.

This is the spirit that good men have.

The idea would be to create safer pathways for women who are being otherwise oppressed rather than those women being dependent on men making the journey and then going through family reunification processes. This could also empower asylum seeking women if they get here, form a support network, learn English and are able to gain employment and training before men arrive via family reunification. That puts those women who are more at risk in a stronger position overall.

I agree option 1 is preferable. But it has been claimed that it will stop illegal immigration which isn’t the case.

Maybe not, but I speak for a lot of people.

The biggest number of illegal immigrants is not those who come on a boat but those who come on a time limited visa and never return. Digital ID is one way of tackling this so you know who shouldn’t be here and haven’t left, but the moaners think that threatens their civil liberties or some nonsense so that won’t get done.

Speak for yourself because you definitely don't speak for me.