So what can in practical terms fully halt illegal immigration?

How does an employer check backgrounds once they have leave to remain? Its not different.

It was a deterrent that would have paid for itself eventually.

Not Starmer - Farage.

For what it's worth, a relative of mine has posted on facebook that he voted for Starmer because a Chinese player won the snooker and he can't stand it anymore.

And it was expensive!

Yes although someone can become a UK national within 5 years of a number of criteria is met, theoretically that could be within 6 years or so of your arrival although for many that will be later.

Agree. Anyone can come illegally and claim asylum- basically often by lying - we’ve heard the tapes of people being briefed on what to say to get asylum.

The young men coming from Africa in small boats may claim asylum and therefore technically not be illegal but we all know they are essentially economic migrants.

I’d put them into basic warehouse type accommodation, basic diet, not allow phones etc, keep them detained then use the army to fly them back to where they came from.

@FernandoSor -All foreign students to attend all classes in person, no remote learning from your uncle’s petrol station 200 miles away. Revocation of student visas and fines to educational establishments if students found to be absent.

I worked in a Russell Group University and we weren’t allowed to ask foreign students on visas to sign a register because it was unfair to single them out - and given there could be up to 500 students in some lectures, it wasn’t feasible to take a register from everyone. I had one student zoom into an online class whilst actually working in a fast food place - I’m not joking.

How would employers check their background? They may have criminal records.

That’s something that needs altering then!

Would you be in favour of allowing asylum seekers to work while their claim is processed?

They dont have to seek asylum in the first safe country. Thats the law. So they're not illegal.

As far as I am aware we've never invaded Albania.

But that wasn't the Rwanda scheme. The Rwanda scheme was intended to take asylum seekers to Rwanda, process their claim there, and if found to be eligible, allow them to claim asylum in RWANDA. There was no way for them to gain asylum in the UK, one of the reasons it was so opposed.

Plenty of U.K. citizens sleeping on the streets who are in severe housing need!

The asylum system is not fit for purpose in the modern world.

The sheer number of people living in hellscapes is too high for the 'good' countries to take them all in without a complete economic collapse.

So the checks need to be far more vigourous. No ID, no provable identity, no asylum. And the criteria needs to change too.

Europe needs to put it's own oxygen mask on first, or the whole plane is going down.

Tried to make this point time and time again, but some just won’t have it!

Their situation is different. Those who want to live in Dubai do it through choice, often work related, and can afford to do it.
Those seeking to live in the U.K. must satisfy certain criteria

We are told people come here on small boats (rather than staying in another closer safe country), because of the language. Because English is a global language. But many of the arrivals can’t speak it, hence the need for so many translators.

You try going to Dubai and asking for asylum, Try asking their government for housing, food and benefits. People who go and live there are on temporary work visas and have to pay for everything - healthcare, schools, the lot. If you ever need a translator, you sort it and pay for it yourself. It’s really not comparable.

Many UK nationals who need housing are very recent uk nationals. About 40-50% of social housing in London goes to people born abroad.

They should have to, unless they have a legitimate reason with proof, to come to the U.K.

What is different?

A factcheck report - In 2022-23, 90% of social lets were allocated to UK nationals and the
remaining 10% were allocated to EEA, Swiss and Irish citizens (who would
have remained eligible under the UK connection test) or migrants in severe
housing need.

Their situation is different

To answer the question, keeping the Rwanda scheme would have helped. It was a deterrent and it was working. People could have been processed there and then if genuine, they could be brought here once their claim was approved.

Stricter rules would need to be introduced to decide who is genuine. Someone who has been convicted of a crime in their home country and worried about the punishment is not genuine. Someone who is pretending to be gay but then wants to bring their wife with them isn’t genuine. Someone from Albania or a country where Brits go on holiday to is not genuine.

The point is to discourage dangerous crossings in the first place. The government has run schemes to take asylum seekers directly from places in conflict in the past Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine etc. We give a lot in aid to other countries too, it’s not like we do nothing (unlike some rich countries in the world).

Detention.
Refusal of settlement by other means for anyone who has a failed asylum claim. They would need to go home and apply for a visa.
Better data sharing across government agencies. Follow the money.
Limited legal aid.
Detention, detention, detention. It is ultimately the only way to control illegal migration whilst allowing asylum claims.
That would of course not stop people coming but they would try and evade authorities and disappear. Would reduce the accommodation and legal bills but increase crime.
Migrants pick their destinations for many reasons. UK has to be made less attractive than other options if it wants to absorb fewer people. If UK acted unilaterally there would be a spike in Ireland and other EU countries.
It is complex and a full solution would turn Europe into a place many people would not tolerate so very little will be done. Desperate people will do whatever they can to migrate. And by desperate I mean desperate to make a life for themselves. Very very few are being individually persecuted.
I think migration will continue to the West and eventually end up with the dismantling of many social benefits that are currently taken for granted. Crime will rise. Religious tensions will rise. It feels inevitable.