So what can in practical terms fully halt illegal immigration?

A man who would be at risk in his native country as a rapist obviously made a pretty informed decision to rape somebody and being The Country Where It’s Cushty To Be A Rapist is another incentive problem and also a terrible problem in itself.

What does this mean? You think the UK is a country that’s more lenient on sexual
violence than countries small boat arrivals are leaving?

They’re not. Only around 16% of PIP claimants are in work.

You think 1 million people arrived legally and that visa applications were checked and processed?
We don't have enough civil servants to process a quarter of those applications even if every civil servant from every department worked on it. lt takes months for DWP (the department with the most civil servants) months to get through a few thousand rush in benefit applications. Visa applications are processed in the Home Office which has a tiny fraction of the amount of civil servants of DWP. It might be what official data says but it is impossible the Home Office processed 1 million visas, absolutely impossible.

Other countries may take more refugees than the UK, but it is usually on a more temporary basis.

Germany gives refugee and asylum status with a residence permit for 3 years. This can be extended if there still is a crisis in your home country. For permanent residence you have to have an exceptionally high level of German, and be financially self sufficient.

Germany also has been deporting any convicted criminals regardless of their country of origin, including deportations to Afghanistan and Syria.

Think that’s quite enough, don’t you?

Actually only 13%-18% work, and those who do often work minimum hours!

Putting Aus and UK in as who pays more for the asylum process it’s the UK system overall.

Denmark seems to have turned it around according to chapgpt.

What has denmark done to reduce illegal immigration?

Denmark has adopted one of Europe’s toughest immigration and asylum systems over the past decade, especially after the 2015 migrant crisis. The policies mainly target irregular migration, rejected asylum seekers, and long-term integration problems.
Some of the main measures include:
Stricter asylum rules
Temporary rather than permanent refugee protection permits.
Frequent reviews of refugee status so protection can be withdrawn if a country is later judged “safe.”
Longer waits for family reunification in some cases.
Border controls and enforcement
Denmark reintroduced checks on its border with Germany despite the Schengen system.
Police gained broader powers to detain and identify undocumented arrivals.
Transport companies can be fined for carrying passengers without proper ID into Denmark.
Faster deportation and return policies
Rejected asylum seekers are often placed in “departure centres” while awaiting removal.
Denmark has pushed harder for deportations of foreign nationals convicted of serious crimes.
Authorities have sought agreements with third countries for asylum processing and returns, including discussions involving Rwanda, though a Rwanda system was never fully implemented.
Reducing incentives to claim asylum
Lower welfare payments for asylum seekers.
Rules allowing authorities to seize valuables from asylum seekers to help cover accommodation costs.
Restrictions on asylum seekers choosing their own housing.
“Parallel society” / “ghetto” laws
Areas with high unemployment, crime, poverty, and large non-Western immigrant populations can be designated “parallel societies.”
Local authorities can reduce social housing in those areas, relocate residents, or limit who can move in.
Supporters say this prevents segregation; critics argue it discriminates against ethnic minorities. Parts of the policy have faced legal challenges in EU courts.
Tougher integration and citizenship standards
Stronger Danish language requirements.
Cultural and employment requirements for permanent residency and citizenship.
Policies designed to encourage rapid integration into Danish society.
Supporters argue these policies sharply reduced asylum applications and helped maintain public support for immigration control. Critics say some measures may violate human rights norms or unfairly target minorities. Denmark’s approach has become influential in debates across Europe, including in the United Kingdom.

How much has immigration dropped?

Denmark has seen a very large drop in asylum migration since the peak of the European migrant crisis.
The clearest figures are for asylum applications:
Around 21,000 asylum applications in 2015
Around 2,000–2,300 applications in 2024–2025
That is roughly a 90% decline over a decade.
Some additional context:
Applications fell from more than 20,000 in 2015 to about 6,000 in 2016, a drop of roughly 70% in a single year after Denmark and other Nordic countries tightened controls.
Monthly asylum applications peaked at over 5,000 in November 2015, but were only about 100 per month in early 2026 according to Eurostat data.
Denmark approved asylum for only 864 people in 2024, one of the lowest totals in decades.
A few important caveats:
These numbers mostly refer to asylum seekers and irregular migration, not all immigration.
Denmark still has legal immigration through:
work visas,
EU free movement,
students,
and family reunification.
Denmark also accepted large numbers of displaced Ukrainians under a separate temporary protection system, which are often counted separately from asylum statistics.
Supporters of the Danish model argue the tougher policies directly reduced arrivals. Critics argue broader European trends also mattered, including:
the EU-Turkey migration deal,
tighter border controls across Europe,
and changing migration routes.

So they should a lot more countries (France, Germany and Spain are a lot bigger than the UK) the UK is already overcrowded especially England and it’s not sustainable to allow tens of thousands of unvetted men each year in to the UK in hotels then HMOs, the infrastructure in the UK can’t cope with it. It’s absurd how many people don’t see the major problem of uncontrolled immigration and how many towns and cities are unrecognisable from even 10yrs ago.

Except for the fully paid room all bills included and 3 meals a day or £49 to feed self. Aside from legal aid. But yes aside from bed, board and legal aid no benefits at all.

They may have residency in other countries though and it may not be safe for them to go back to the country that they were originally from. The country may not accept it. Im telling why its not as straightforward as people think it is.

You dont claim asylum from outside the UK anyway, lots of us have reminded posters of this. Not sure why this keeps getting forgotten as surely people do know this?

If Dubai didn't want any Brits arriving they sure as shit wouldn't sit hand ringing as to how to achieve it. They would say no and people would listen wouldn't they as they wouldn't want to know the consequences if they didn't.

Except you cannot legally claim asylum in the UK if you are not already in the UK...

If we made it that you could do so, then people wouldn't need to cross by boat so that they can claim asylum.

4% of people that arrived on small boats between 2018 and Sept 2025 were returned.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-september-2025/how-many-people-are-returned-from-the-uk
"Processing" people is a complete waste of time. They need to be stopped from arriving (third country processing). It is too late when they are here the vast vast majority are staying. Even if they are declined they are staying. Even if they commit crime they are staying in the vast majority of cases.

If they have a passport they have residency n that country. So they go back there and claim asylum from that country.

And we'll pay more if people want to increase removals to third countries. They inevitably mean countries that people have travelled to. I cannot tell you the rabbit holes that the HO go down back and forth, back and forth trying to effect negotiation with the likes of Turkey, Albania so on and so on.

So firstly you said that I said we should take more and I asked you where I said that?

You produce this post where I have been clear that if people are arguing that we should take a quota based on size, we would end up taking more becuase we take a small amount pro rata, based on our size.

It’s not the numbers it’s the type.

People in small boats are overwhelmingly adult males and frequently don’t seem to have papers, so nothing can really be known about them.

If you are a criminal coming over on a boat to the UK is just sensible.

That is an incentive problem.

Particularly because when you commit a crime here the system doesn’t deport you to
your home country if they might infringe your human rights because of your crime.

At some point I think we need to be clear about whether we are willing to be responsible for the standards of behaviour of other countries. A man who would be at risk in his native country as a rapist obviously made a pretty informed decision to rape somebody and being The Country Where It’s Cushty To Be A Rapist is another incentive problem and also a terrible problem in itself.

We pay now.

Here

A third country we have to pay for though.

Through the nose.

Third country processing will stop the boats. The people would only board the boat if they would rather live in Rwanda than France.

National ID card that has to be carried at all times like in Germany, Japan etc and proper border control - also when leaving the country.
Hard message including PR campaign in Syria, Libya etc that people without the right visa will be turned back on arrival.
And we needed to be much stricter 30 years ago that the entire extended family couldn’t come and get educated, access healthcare at our expense.
It infuriates me that because point 2 was not taken care of from the 90s onwards, we now face being governed by right wing nut jobs with no experience of running anything or of government and potentially suffering under point 1.

And what about you?

Are you a volunteer or do you get paid?

You don’t have to answer, of course!

Oh, and I didn’t get it wrong.

You wrote that education and NHS are free.

I didnt say services are free, I was setting out in answer to someone else about what they recive and what they actually have to pay for. But you know that and are just being argumentative becuase you got it wrong when you first responded.

They do not, have to pay for NHS care or education for their children. Just like anyone who is also not contributing financially by way of tax or NI

But you know that also.