News from Migration Central re migrants/asylum seekers.

You can have efficient, well managed routes where people are vetted and allowed entry, you can stop deaths at sea and allow the people to work as soon as they gain entry but if you keep entry via shore you’ll just get deaths, chaos and risk on top of the efficient routes.

Countries that have created capped, controlled routes don’t have on shore arrivals.

Of course, I agree it is impossible to stop irregular migration altogether - there are many reasons, both good and bad, why people will always want to come and make a home in the U.K. and some people will always be prepared to go to extreme measures to get here.

My own opinion is that immigration can be both positive and negative for society, and so, in my view the most pragmatic way forward is well managed, efficient routes, where applicants can have their claims processed quickly, alongside swift returns and deterrents for people who choose not to use those legal routes.

That seems a balanced approach to me. The most important thing, I think, though is to take the heat and anger out of a debate that has become unnecessarily polarised and divisive.

This is not from the Migration Observatorty but a substack from the think thank Centre of Migration Control

@Snowwhiteandthe77dwarfs You should ask MN to correct your title.

You’re right it is hard to model - but all asylum and immigration policy is hard to model, not least because the behaviour of desperate people fleeing persecution is hard to predict.

That is why, in my opinion, efficiently managed legal routes, which enable us collect accurate data, is the most pragmatic way forward.

It’s the same mixed message with immigration in general.

I find it very frustrating, as someone who thinks immigration can be tremendously beneficial.

Our politicians seem allergic to thinking sensibly about what sort of immigration to support and what to oppose. It’s either all good or all bad.

It’s a conflicting narrative atm. Politicians tell the electorate they are ‘getting numbers down’ as a good thing. Some countries use hardline policy to restrict asylum and stay in power as centre left governments even.

That’s a consideration, but it’s hard to model. I think most countries wouldn’t care very much, some will be unhappy, some might be pleased because it gives them political cover to do similar.

France is the interesting case: if the UK stopped asylum, would that make things better or worse for them? I’d guess better because one big draw to coming to France (ie, to get to England) would be significantly reduced.

They can put routes in place but they’ll get entry via shore as it won’t meet the demand. It’ll just be both methods of entry.

Taking the morality out of it, we are part of a global community. If we did not take any asylum seekers, the international community, including our allies - onto whom we would be shifting the burden - would not be happy and our standing on the international stage would be diminished, leaving us isolated and vulnerable.

You alleviate the suffering probably of different people who are no less worthy, but who can be helped in a massively more cost-effective way.

Between:

Granting asylum to one of the people you have in mind (let’s say £40k pa),

Saving the life of about 10 people per year (at $5k/yr, via the most effective interventions).

I think the latter is generally the right choice.

If people cannot stay where they are, how else do you alleviate suffering than by giving them an escape route?

I think there’s quite a strong moral case for having no asylum system other than for specific, targeted cases.

If we take the main moral argument for asylum to be an obligation to alleviate suffering of people in extreme hardship or danger, then doing it via asylum is a remarkably poorly-targeted and expensive way to do it, that also brings with it other harms (eg channel crossing risks). While I think a system like the one proposed is an improvement, I’m not convinced they fundamentally fix those problems.

All public policy involves choices. Asylum is a very unpopular way to do a little good quite haphazardly.

Given most people’s main, legitimate concern is undocumented migrants, then I don’t see how this could be anything other than a good thing.

Aside from the fact that it would be completely against British values of tolerance and compassion, no longer accepting asylum seekers would make us international pariahs, and leave us isolated from our allies.

Safe, legal routes, efficiently managed is the only solution. If the Home Office actually achieve that, then fantastic.

Unless you are arguing that we should not allow anyone asylum then there has to be a procedure. Otherwise, you get what we have got - small boats. The HO has long been unfit for purpose(regardless of the party in power): long delays, lost paperwork, deporting low lying fruit (the law abiding who follow all the rules), but leaving criminal gangs alone. The problem is that the recent speed & volume of migration prevent adequate vetting & discourage acculturation. ‘Safe & legal routes’ allow for vetting before entry & some introduction to expected behaviour once here. Not only things like attitudes to sex & sexuality but public behaviour expectations. It also controls the rate of migration. Why would you object to any of those things?

Yes Good. It saves lives - especially the more vulnerable women and child migrants. Migration won’t magically stop. People are going to try to get here whether you like it or not. It’s been studied and shown that restricting legal routes pushes migrants to the dangerous routes rather than stopping migration. Here is a link to the Report

Sounds great.

I don’t think that is the Migration Observatory.

Asylum-seeker sharing sounds good in theory, but evaluation claims is still a major problem.

I think I’d scrap the asylum system completely and in exchange return to 0.7% of GNP aid.

Trying to address the problem that many people globally live in extreme hardship by admitting a tiny fraction of them, mixed in with lots of chancers and fraudsters, almost all of whom pass through multiple safe countries to get here, makes no sense.

Put differently, when you can save a life for about $5k, what’s the moral case for spending £40k p.a+ per head to rescue people from the indignity of living in France?

(I think there are specific cases, eg Afghan translators, HK residents, which I’d analyse differently becuase I think the rationale or obligation rests on other grounds).

safe and legal. Good.