The immigrant barge - what’s actually wrong with using it?

[NC523]

Educate me!

I looked at pics from the inside, it all looks very much like standard student accommodation to me, including common rooms/relaxation areas/health support on board. Residents can go on & off the boat, it’s passed fire etc safety and been used to house people in lots of other situations. I don’t understand why people think it’s not ok. Can anyone explain please?

I am getting the impression that some sorts of economic migrants are fine and others are not, is that correct?

Surely if the government processed the claims correctly in line with the law in the first place then there would be no grounds for an appeal?

I think I have understood that those that arrive on boats are the wrong sort of migrants in it is the numbers of those that are too high.

Depends on what they want to do. NHS/healthcare you need a job offer. In fact, most visas require a job offer.

As someone who has had the unfortunate pleasure of navigating the UK visa system, it is HORRIBLE, and intentionally difficult.

Can you point to the post where I gave an opinon as to whether or not the Bibby Stockholm should be used at great expense to house a small proportion of the asylum seekers in the UK?

Employment generally gives people purpose in life and tends to make them feel better at themselves. Take a look at those areas in the UK that has generational unemployment and all the associcated problems with that - you could start with the coal mining areas that were decimated and then abandoned by a former Tory government.

Well for the past 13 years the government has chosen to defund the police and criminal justice system, so it probably isn't a surprise that they have effectively decriminalised people smuggling.

And the Italians have chosen to permit it too? You’re likely underestimating the scale of the problem and how hard it is to tackle unless you go full Australian style immigration control. Maybe you do want that?

Why do student visas feel problematic to you in particular? We have a pretty good system that gets higher fees from o/s students which helps fund overall. Other countries do this too

Skilled visas and healthcare visas are up, maybe you want more. What number are you thinking?

Most countries visa systems are horrible, expensive and complicated. That doesn’t mean that people should bypass countries legal requirements because they don’t think it applies to them. The world doesnt work like that.

routes available to afghans -

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9307/

This post is complete nonsense.

Firstly the number you have given is not even nearly the population of Sunderland

Secondly the number of asylum claims currently outstanding is the accumulation of many years, not a single year's intake - and you have that number wrong too, but at least in the rough ballpark

Thirdly the number of refugees we take in has a negligible affect on our population.

That is controlled by deaths,(20 x greater than the number you are giving for refugees) births,( again more than 20 x greater) emigration ( again more than 20 x greater) and immigration ( less than 1% of whom are refugees)

The number of refugees UK takes in an a year would not fill an average premiere league football stadium

Sunderland 😂

@EllenVannen if your objection to the number of refugees coming into the UK is that "the population growth is unsustainable" and clearly it has no effect on population growth at all, I take it you no longer object?

Having dealt with a couple of other systems it has become more evident how strict some countries are

Maybe people do want to move to a stricter one though, say Aus?

Just on an entirely practical basis, can the whole difficult process be done online or does one have to visit the relevant British embassy?

One has to take a SELT before one can apply for the work visa. Are there any tests centres in Afganistan or Syria?

I believe the visas mentioned are via online application. There are no SELT test centres in Syria and proof of English language is a requirement. I believe you are redirected to centres in Turkey/Egypt etc.

You have to go to test centres in neighbouring countries, which if you can get here by boat illegally can be done.

I would favour an Australian model yes. It is also where I’m moving too after being granted my visa to live and work there.

I‘ve read the article, and while it’s certainly interesting, it’s also a bit vague:

„Yet here in the UK we estimate there are thousands of potential nurses, carers and doctors who are available to work and contribute to our society right now.“ - ‚estimate‘ and ‚potential‘, so there might be thousands of health professionals, or there might not.

The article states that according to a government spokesperson “Asylum seekers can take up jobs on the shortage occupation list if their claim has been outstanding for 12 months or more, through no fault of their own.”, but that due to the government backlog it might take four to 12 months after they reach this threshold for permission to be granted.

So it might take up to two years, but there seems to be the option to eventually work for the NHS (presumably after passing the Medical Council (GMC) professional and linguistics exams).
As previously mentioned, my family were immigrants. To work in their professions they would have had to get whole new degrees in our host country (which takes four years or more), so two years would have been fine.

Out of the three people who were interviewed for that article, the first one had been in the UK for less than a year.
The second one had her asylum application and the following appeals denied.
And the third one got a work permit and found a job, but had to move for it (not entirely unheard of).
The main issues in his case seemed to be the fact that he didn’t have a bank account (the reason for which wasn’t explained) and that he was missing his wife (absolutely understandable, but again, it wasn’t explained in the article what the procedures would be to get her over to the UK and how long it might take).

So all in all quite an emotional article, but also a bit vague.

@calmcoco Yes, it's a shame the Tories have cut back - deliberately - on tackling people smuggling and illegal work.

Really ?

https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/national-crime-agency-awarded-over-8m-in-fight-to-tackle-serious-and-organised-crime

and

https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/who-we-are/publications/594-nca-annual-plan-2022-23/file

Which of course all adds to the cost.

I guess the system is designed to ensure only wealthy economic migrants stand a chance of getting a visa.

You need £50k to come to the UK to start a business.

The main form of unskilled entry are family/spouse visas.

My mistake - I looked at the wrong line - should read 'Slough'

Secondly the number of asylum claims currently outstanding is the accumulation of many years, not a single year's intake - and you have that number wrong too, but at least in the rough ballpark

I never said it was a single years intake. If you're going to criticize please apply some comprehension.

The latest immigration figures are - Net migration (the inflow minus the outflow) now stands at just over 600,000 for last year alone. Of course, there are some special factors. Refugees from Ukraine and Afghanistan plus migrants from Hong Kong account for more than 260,000 arrivals. Just over 40,000 relatives of those already granted asylum brought total refugee immigration to around 300,000 people in 2022.

I don't really know how to reply to someone who can't be bothered to read the entire post.

Migration is almost all people with skills we need who have been invited in to fill gaps in the employee market - not refugees.

You are confusing the accumulated number over many years, and the number per year, and you are making out this is an overall number orders of magnitude bigger than it is.

We are talking about human beings - you could be a refugee this time next year.

@Nevermay if your objection to the number of refugees coming into the UK is that "the population growth is unsustainable" and clearly it has no effect on population growth at all, I take it you no longer object?

Then you would 'take it' wrong.

It may be clearly, to you, but not according to my figures at 17.15.

For the sake of clarity am I right in saying you are happy for the Uk to take
a) rich economic migrants
b) migrants from Ukraine (note they are not granted refugee status
c) migrants from HK (note they are also not granted refugee status

But are not happy for the UK to accept poor migrants most of whom who are asylum seekers fleeing persecution if they arrive in small boats, or in other words less than 10% of the total migrants to the Uk

Just to be clear migrants from HK and Ukraine are not legally refugees in the UK.

@theyareonlynoodlesmichael Then do you agree they need to be given more in terms of benefits and support to then help them integrate into society, with counseling, access to medical services etc?

Why do asylum seekers need all that input? According to @jgw1 they can go straight to work while their asylum claims are being processed.