We can't stop the boats without leaving the ECHR, right?

[Notmycircusnotmyotter]

forgive my ignorance, but this is the case isn't it? And yet other countries ignore judgments and deport illegal immigrants (Poland for example).

I don't really know where I sit so this isn't supposed to be goady but the collective mind will know more. My question is, why isn't this part of the discussion? Government / media never shut up about small boat crossings but short of drastic action (towing them back? Deportations?) what can they actually do?

The vast majority 70%, stay in bordering countries which isn't always successful. For example, Pakistan is sending women back to Afghanistan and you're very vulnerable in the camps.

The rest go further afield. Only a tiny percentage come to the UK, France and Germany take far more than us.

People try to make it to the UK because they have relatives here, speak English or think there are better opportunities.

What I do not understand is if you tried to run through passport control at a British airport security would leg it after you and stop you rather promptly.

Why are we so relaxed about picking up all the waifs and strays from the channel and allowing them to stay in hotels without any kind of restrictions as to their movement?

Please can a better educated mind explain this to me. Or have I misunderstood what happens to the new arrivals?

Iran Turkey and Pakistan have the most globally. U.K. takes in 1pc of the global total. As pp said 70% stay in a neighbouring country.

Bear in mind, these people are not criminals.
The home office do keep a close eye on their location via payments, schools the children go to, contact details for processing asylum claims etc.

Not easy- It would still mean a huge number needing accommodation and healthcare etc. probably more, as it would be easier to get here. It’s overwhelming and no one has a solution.

Setting aside any other concerns about the impact of leaving the ECHR for the time being, what evidence do we actually have that doing this would stop the boats in any case?

Yes, we know that right wingers like Farage and Jenrick like to talk about this as a solution, and I suppose it would make it easier for the government to deport people, but would it actually stop the boats from coming over? Would it stop the people trafficking gangs from making false promises to desperate people that they would be able to smuggle them in? Would the threat of deportation deter people from getting on the boats when we know that the risk of imminent death doesn't put them off?

I'm very sceptical, personally, and I think that we would lose far more than we would gain as a result of this decision.

Not really. If those found ineligible for asylum were quickly deported, we would not have to pay for accommodation.
Refugees are victims who are fleeing their lives, they should be assessed and supported to find housing and work just as everyone else is.

Please say that is tongue in cheek.

Nope, completely genuine.

What is going to happen in the future when climate change migrants start turning up on our shores? 10 million a year? 100 million? How many is acceptable? It'll make the imminent collapse of the NHS look like a kids party. We'll be seeking asylum in Norway, Canada and the Baltics at this rate. Russia will be looking like a viable alternative if we continue on the current trajectory.

May I ask how you know that none of them are criminals?

The disparity between what happens when accessing the UK through official entry points compared the way we deal with Channel crossings if pretty scary.

IMO

Now it’s all island of strangers rhetoric rather than dog whistle culture wars the proposal of leaving may well get more traction.

I don’t think Labour will benefit though.

It’s simple, life in the U.K. is much more attractive, accommodation, health care, education, pluses such as driving lessons, spending money. Much more attractive than a tent in Calais! Speaking English is said to be one reason for coming here- if so, why are we spending a fortune on interpreters?

There are plenty of places which are British soil which could be for those awaiting claims to be placed. St Kilda, some other Scottish islands, for example. Practical if claims are processed quickly.

The UK would be less attractive to the gangs if there were not so many opportunities to earn money from unofficial sources.

Somewhat unusually, I agree with you. This approach will not benefit Labour, it will backfire on them.

Of course some will be criminals, but the vast majority will not, same as any group. It's like saying that men with blond hair are criminals because some of them commit crime.

Can you explain more about the disparity you mentioned?

We can’t stop the boats full stop.

Totally agree! A well functioning asylum system is the best way to smash the gangs!

I agree with this, why would it not work?

Could deport anyone who lands without having followed any procedures. (I am not exactly sure how that would work but if it was clearly an inhospitable route maybe people would stop coming)

Surely they should go to the country closest to them geographically and culturally.

I've never even thought of that as a solution! What a brilliant idea, why on earth aren't they doing that!?

Edited for spelling

We have obligations to anyone in our water under Maritime law. They apply for asylum and once they apply have rights under international law.

They are placed around the country in HO appointed housing until their claim is processed. Once given status, they can live where they like.

They do! 70 % of the global asylum seekers do just this. Only 1% come here.

Agree I have no clue why they take such risks - its pretty shit here (and I don't want to hear bollocks about free stuff and phones they are given a bare minimum to live on whilst banned from work and our claims system works at a snails pace)

Have you seen the declining birth rate in this country? Migrants aren’t the problem. The benefit system is. Too few workers paying tax and it’s getting less and less each year.