Asylum - how does it work, what would providing ‘safe routes’ look like?

I have worked in a related field and the short answer is that there is no solution so long as the demand so far outweighs the capacity of western countries.

If we consider humanitarian reasons the fear of gang violence, famine, war and persecution of women then all of haiti, syria, sudan and ukraine are eligible, just for starters. But where do we put this many refugees ? It's structurally impossible.

I know of an office in an embassy in a third country whose job was to process asylum claims from syrian refugees. They had two people and a backlog of hundreds of applications. But really it doesn't matter if they'd had ten, fifty or a hundred workers in that office. The demand would have outstripped their capacity until the millions of refugees were all processed.

The claims of those that make it to Europe are not worthier - indeed they're usually less so. But they are harder to ignore.

The only way to end it would be to do what the us did and mass deport everyone. Which btw I'm not necessarily advocating for. The way the US is handling that is pretty awful.

I'm just not sure that this is an issue that has a solution. I do think that a country's duty is first to its own citizens, before helping others if and when they can afford to. I also think that when there is capacity, then there is a moral duty to help others - but where is the limit in that regard, how many people can efectively be welcomed until you're reduced to putting them in tents because there's no housing and on benefits because there are no jobs ? That's a grey area.

i’m not condoning welfare cuts at all. I’m just saying factually this is what drew the attention of the government here- the increase. I’d don’t know what I said that says I’m ok with boat crossings.

Are you for welfare cuts? But ok with high numbers of crossings?

It was 100% a Tory line. They said immigrants caused low wages. Then they stuffed their wallets full of cash and laughed heartily.

I’m not really sure what your figures are trying to prove. Overall The increase is down to the incapacity benefit. Hence the current government targeting it, Overall the unemployment rate has been low and fairly stable.

I think you may have just proved my point actually. Who would have been doing all those newly created jobs if it hadn’t been for immigration?

It's not a Tory line btw

In 2011 foreign-born workers accounted for 14 per cent of the UK workforce. Today it’s 21 per cent. Employment has grown by 3.6 million since 2011, but fully 74 per cent of this is down to immigrant workers

In 2011, the proportion on out-of-work benefits (including incapacity benefit) in Sunderland was 18 per cent; today it is 19 per cent. In 2011 the unemployment figure in Rotherham was 16 per cent; today it is 18 per cent. In Hartlepool, it was 21 per cent; today, 23 per cent. A quarter of people of working age in the area are claiming welfare for incapacity or worklessness.

3.6 million more are in work compared with 2011 but only 929,000 were born here.

We are addicted to cheap low skilled labour using immigrants. This needs to stop. Unfortunately all immigrants now.are considered part of the problem. This is the fault of successive governments starting in 1997.

There won't be a shortage of home grown cheap labour soon once the effects of the budget kick in.

That was a Tory line. But there is a shortage of labour for low skilled and therefore lower paid jobs - so despite pointing the finger they continued to allow high levels of immigration simply because it is essential.

The reality is that immigration only has a small impact on low wages (and increases average wages)

The real answers to increasing pay are much more complicated. The UK is one of the most unequal countries in the world. A small number hold most of the wealth.

And none of this has anything to do with asylum seekers anyway.

Wages are so low because there are so many people already in this country that are prepared to do a job for a low wage. More and more are coming in and so wages will continue to be suppressed.

The OBR predictions were much more complicated than that actually.

It notes; The precise estimate of migrants’ fiscal contribution or cost depends heavily on the methods analysts use. Regardless of the differences in methods, studies typically find that the fiscal impacts of migration represent less than 1% of GDP

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/

i think the real crime here is that taxpayer money is supplementing low wages. Why are wages so low that people can’t live on them. Who benefits from this? That’s the kind of thing we should be focused on.

I know.we differ on this and I see what you are saying. But it's clearly unsustainable. The OBR predicts that immigrants and their dependents (assuming they bring an average of 1.38) will COST us over £80billion in their lifetimes. Immigrants become sick or disabled or old too and then it becomes a ponzi scheme that never ends just grows and grows.

We will soon have a lot of youth unemployment. We have the workers already.

We literally cannot run essential services without immigration. I don't mean the small number seeking Asylum I mean the ones with visas for work such as care or picking veg.

Our natural population is shrinking. Adult women in the UK, on average, bear only 1.6 children.

Bottom line is we need them, not the other way round.

Doubt it. The population boom set to come is pretty much all driven by immigration and the country cannot afford the billions of pounds needed to support their lives and those of their dependents. That's just reality.

If there therefore has to be a financial choice between taxpayers looking after the UKs homeless, disabled and vulnerable and asylum seekers from the rest of the world I'll chose our own thanks.

That country isn’t going to vote it out.

@Thoughtsonstuff But the UK isn’t taking in the world’s diaspora. If you look at all of Europe Asylum seeker applications are below average.

Do you think it’s asylum seekers fault that the UK government doesn’t care about some sections of society? I can assure you they don’t care about the most vulnerable across the board.

After world war 2 the British economy was in a difficult place but the NHS was born, welfare was expanded and large numbers of housing was built. Where there is political and public will there is a way. The government is happy to have you pointing your finger at less than a percent of the population and blaming them for poverty in the Uk. You are looking in the wrong direction.

I don't believe the poster is talking about the UK. Unfortunately that's not how the law works when it comes to asylum seekers and refugees.

Humans have human rights of course. But every human does not have the right to move to the UK no matter what.

We are a small island with limited space and an acute housing shortage and are having problems affording supporting our own vulnerable people. We are nearly bankrupt.

With reference to the number of people that are gay in any country I understand that the science suggests it's 10% of the population. So in many countries 10% of the population would have a basis to claim asylum in the UK. And that's just one reason.

We need to concentrate on our own poor and vulnerable (currently many are frightenend due to the potential cuts in disabled benefits due to lack of money) and not continue to take in the worlds diaspora. Otherwise we ruin our own country on their behalf.

@Odras Unfortunately asylum seekers are often placed in areas unsuitable to their needs.

Several countries such as Germany have compulsory culture classes where you learn about German culture and how to integrate.

However if you have people fleeing war, who may have experienced terrible things, alone and barely able to speak the language, it's very difficult to adapt.

Also agree on speeding up the processing of claims.

I think the answers are very complicated and multifaceted but the government have resorted to these simplistic slogans to keep the population happy.

@Maitri108 Yes I agree on the supports. I’ve been involved in these voluntary conversational English classes and I’m struck by just how much support some people will need to be able to work and live here. People who have been in refugee camps for most of their lives and don’t really have any understanding of how the western world works.

I think no matter the deterrents between conflict and climate change, more and more people will risk their lives to come to Europe for a chance of a better life. Integration and support will be critical so that we don’t end up with a segment of society that are disillusioned and always on the margins.

Boat arrivals to Australia have zero chance of being resettled in Australia by the way. Most boats are intercepted at sea and either towed back to Indonesia or there are cases where they have paid the people smugglers to take them back.

We have several options, some worse than others. Australia breaks international law via push backs and unlimited detention. I don't believe people are treated very well in detention.

We could send people straight back to Afghanistan, Iran, Syria or Yemen. They won't have been processed so we don't know if they'd face torture or death. We'd need agreement from their home country to do that.

Other solutions are cooperation from France and better international cooperation in stopping people en route. France don't seem happy to give further help.

Longer term, investing in the environment, as people flee the consequences of global warming, and stop invading and exploiting other countries.

Invest in the HO to speed up the processing of claims as it's currently taking years.

We already take in refugees via various schemes. It would help if we invested in English classes and other support so that people can better integrate. Currently asylum seekers are sent to various places around the country where there is often little support.

Which country do you think we should use to process claims?

I'm referring to this comment above:

but offshore processing seems to be the only remotely workable solution so far