Stopping the boats is easy...

If people were allowed to claim asylum from outside the UK, then they wouldn't need to "break in" in the first place.

If people were allowed to claim asylum from outside the UK, then they wouldn't need to "break in" in the first place.

If a homeless person broke into your house and refused to leave and "claimed asylum" would you be forced to cafe for them?

Of course I know what inexcusably happened to the Native Americans. I lived there for 15 years. Appalling, but of little relevance to this discussion.

The US heath care system could more accurately said to be bursting at the seams.

The world has many people living in appalling conditions but we cannot help them all and cannot bring/allow them all here.

You need to get a dose of reality.

No. I am aware it is being discussed as an option in certain circles. I acknowledge it may stop the boats, though as I am unaware what numbers we keep on the percentage of those who arrive by boat and follow up by applying for asylum, this is unclear.

It has great logistical advantages for HMG. If secure - one hell of a caveat - it is easier for asylum seekers with time on their side. Incomplete documentation, often due to misunderstanding, is a major source of rejected asylum claims.

But the bottom line is that some number of those who most need asylum would very likely be put in mortal danger, through human misuse of such a system at both ends and through its penetration.

But the us doesn't have a non contributory health system thats creaking at the seems. Its also not one of the most densely populated places in the world. Its does have a massive crime problem. And the immigrants have formed a large number of organised crime outfits.

But most of all, the thing that you are really really really not seeing in your argument is what actually happened to the Native Americans

Hang on aren’t you saying it’s what you’d prefer? Online applications from o/s?

Indeed. Let’s have a system that allows refugees to arrive legally.

@Brazillas : The US has not overall been a low tax economy. The overall individual tax burden is slightly, but only slightly, lower. Breaking it out is complex and depends on which state you live in. On top of that, individuals and families pay hundreds to thousands of dollars per month for health insurance.

I lived there for over 15 years.

Corporate tax rates are similar across the two countries but the US has a much larger corporate base.

During the pandemic years Trump had not succeeded in stifling immigration. America is historically a proud nation of immigrants.

This century, roughly 40% of American Nobel laureates in the sciences and medicine have been immigrants, whereas roughly 15% of the population are immigrants. These laureates are a symbol, of course, but many Americans understand that immigrants are on the whole hard workers with much to contribute. That’s true in the UK as well, as I documented above.

At the moment the US economy, inclyding my American pension, is being kept afloat with smoke and mirrors.

@Brazillas : The US has not overall been a low tax economy. The overall individual tax burden is slightly, but only slightly, lower. Breaking it out is complex and depends on which state you live in. On top of that, individuals and families pay hundreds to thousands of dollars per month for health insurance.

I lived there for over 15 years.

Corporate tax rates are similar across the two countries but the US has a much larger corporate base.

During the pandemic years Trump had not succeeded in stifling immigration. America is historically a proud nation of immigrants.

This century, roughly 40% of American Nobel laureates in the sciences and medicine have been immigrants, whereas roughly 15% of the population are immigrants. These laureates are a symbol, of course, but many Americans understand that immigrants are on the whole hard workers with much to contribute. That’s true in the UK as well, as I documented above.

At the moment the US economy, inclyding my American pension, is being kept afloat with smoke and mirrors.

Do you mean people just send in forms from o/s?

So someone in Sudan fills out a form that is received online in the U.K. and waits where they are?

I’m not actually sure what you are describing so maybe if you say the mechanism it would become clearer on how it would work

I think it puts genuine adylum seekers in danger.

Tbf what you’re describing is closer to the Australian system as you are unable to apply from the shore. It disqualifies you from entry if you do that.

So we could do similar but it takes hardline measures to get round international laws.

I don't care about the % rate. One years worth of tax does more to fund "public services" than a nurse does in their entire working life.

Apologies for accidentally quoting you above, @EasternStandard

I believe offshore asylum applications would mainly be made online, yes. I only know a little bit about this because it is an example of an issue where citizens of a hostile nation may need a secure way to communicate with the British government. This type of communication is a cybersecurity issue, particularly when dealing with totalitarian regimes.

Do you mean people just send in forms from o/s?

So someone in Sudan fills out a form that is received online in the U.K. and waits where they are?

I’m not actually sure what you are describing so maybe if you say the mechanism it would become clearer on how it would work

Most of those at Ceuta were not considered to be in a position to make valid asylum claims, is that not correct?

If people must submit from abroad, the argument is that those without adequate documentation will be rejected, as they would if they were here. But they won’t be in the UK so the dilemma of whether deporting them violates their human rights does not arise. They don’t need to be housed and fed - or ‘fed’ - while a decision is being made.

Any surge in demand will increase workload for those who deal with asylum cases but this will be behind the scenes. In theory, outcomes are not affected.

I have doubts about how this works in practice, mainly around the safety and security of genuine asylum seekers. I don’t see the relevance of Ceuta as the point of external applications is keeping applicants off British soil.

Ok but how would you deal with the high numbers of applications?

Ceuta was pretty close to a legal route, granted it was not correct but it shows numbers and demand, even if only for a day or two.

So can you say what process you’d put in place o/s to deal with similar?

When is the last time, anywhere in the world, that this resulted in a thriving economy? With data, please.

You sound like Donald Trump. Unfortunately the US debt has just passed $40T.

The biggest problem with the asylum hotels is the lag time in processing. That must be minimised in a system where people apply externally: the lives of genuine asylum seekers may be in danger if they are stuck in their home countries for long.

Most on this thread claim to have no problem with genuine asylum seekers, only with economic poseurs. Let them make external applications and quickly be turned away. Fraudulent successful claims are rather rare.

Why? I'd rather low taxes for everyone. I'd rather a strong economy where people investment