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?

If you hear some of the stories about what they have endured in their home countries, it starts to become clear as to why they risk their lives getting on those boats.

No. I explained above that we have the principle of non refoulement which means asylum seekers can't be sent to countries where they would be in danger.

Think both can simultaneously be the problem surely?

I agree that the only way to tackle the gangs, and therefore the boats, is to focus our efforts on a fair and well-functioning asylum system which will allow people to claim from outside of the country, fast-track the applications of those who travel here illegally and deport those (after due process has taken place) who have failed in their application swiftly, before they have an opportunity to go underground.

There is a lot of absolute bullshit spouted by reform voters (in the main) about how they get "given a council house, full benefits and a new telly" when they arrive - which is wholly untrue; they receive a pittance regardless of whether they're put up in hotels with catering, or private accommodation, and even once they move from asylum seeker to refugee status they are given the bare minimum, so there will indeed be those who create an income for themselves through nefarious channels - some of whom are forced to do so to survive, and others who had every intention to do that from the outset, which was their motivation to come to England in the first place.

But they do.

Australia has the solution. Since 2014, they are in single digits for asylum seekers arriving by boats. Because it is know that you will be immediately deported to a third party county (who is happy to have them for a price) and never allowed to apply for asylum. 10 years later - problem solved.

They've also massively reduced illegal migration in the same way. You can either make your way to the third party country, apply for asylum and wait for your application to be processed. If successful, in you come and if not you either go back or stay in the third party country who is happy to have you.

It’s EXACTLY what the Rwanda scheme copied but unlike here with the perpetual press attacks, the very right wing government of the time stuck with it and it worked. Immigration has plummeted.

They followed up with super strict points system so that they only accept people they need / want to manage legal migrants applications so now they get all of our doctors, nurses and teachers who are happy to work in a system that isn’t utterly broken by …..the amount of people they have! They are further cracking down on student visas and are on track to get immigration down to below 250K by end of this year.

Now Germany, Denmark and Poland (who just ignore EU rules and don’t pay the fines) are looking to do the exact same thing.

But as ever, Britain forever living under colonialism guilt from fucking centuries ago allowed the press (supporting big business bosses who just want cheap labour) and left wing idealism win and kill the Rwanda scheme.

So we will continue to have mass immigration.

Up until very recently most people here (& some still are!) would have trotted out the well worn line about immigrants being net contributors because apparently NO ONE decided to look at how these figures were calculated. Turns out, they calculate 4 years of income tax paid. Thats it. No calculations are even attempted on the take from the system so they are bollocks. Based on that theory, we are all net contributors unless unemployed.

For decades, working class people have been told but leftist think tanks that migrants do not bring down wages, but they have been saying that they do and called racist. For a brief moment during Covid, they were proved correct when all migrants went home and suddenly lorry drives and hospitality staff’s wages grew because employers had no choice.

The truth is out now - the middle class lefties and the utterly corrupt right wing big businesses have been found out.

And the working class are quite rightly fucking furious.

Yep a politician can run on we’ll do as Aus did at the next GE. And then implement steps to get there.

Let’s say you are correct and the U.K. takes about 1% of the global immigrant population. As our population is 0.8% of the worlds total and our land mass is 0.2% of the worlds land mass (no figures for habitable but let’s assume given how fucking tiny we are it’s likely to be similar) - that would mean we are taking more than our fair share would it not?

@Skipthisbit

You can't compare Australia to the UK because people weren't coming over in dingies and they were prepared to break international law.

The reason large detention centres have been stopped from being built here is because of human rights abuses taking place in the ones we have and because you can't hold people indefinitely.

The Rwanda scheme didn't work because it was illegal. Rwanda has been known to send people back to countries where they could be in danger.

The UK also wants to process claims here, not somewhere else which is why we didn't build centres in France. The government are also worried that asylum hubs will attract more people.

I think it was Monday evenings Radio 4 PM programme where they ran clips of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Richi Sunak all vehemently promising to stop the immigration.
Useless governments are the cause.

Australia are still using the policy. Even with a two term Labor gov.

I don't buy that. No one NEEDS to cross the channel in a small boat. They want to come here, they don't need to. There's a big difference. It is not life or death between the UK or France, Germany or many other numerous countries.

Even Starmer is now saying that no one should be crossing the channel in a small boat.

See my other post above but briefly yes it does work because Australia did it and it worked. Since 2014, they are in SINGLE DIGITS for people arriving illegally in boats. So it categorically, demonstrably is proven to work.

Is he? How does he plan to stop it. Other than smash the gangs which means numbers have gone up.

Funnily enough we are the country with no ID cards.

You might not buy it. So what?

If you haven't ever sat down and listened with an open mind to the stories of those who have risked their lives to come in on those boats, then I don't really value your opinion.

France took very few back. We could only make an application to do that if they’d claimed asylum in France - and unsurprisingly both the French officials and the migrants themselves were reluctant to provide evidence of that. Plus France discourages actual applications - partly for this reason.

God knows! I don't think he's got a clue really.

The number of Asylum applicants in Australia dropped off after the turn backs began - not an option in the Channel (lack of international waters, flimsier boats because they are travelling a short distance so greater risk to life and the Navy rejected the proposal).
Numbers actually increased when off shore processing was introduced.
Graph courtesy of The Times

Australias location is much more remote than the uk. That’s likely the biggest deterrent.

@MiloMinderbinder925

um ….virtually every country in the world has been caught at one time or other illegally returning immigrants but because Rwanda is an African country they are held to higher standards and roundly decried.
The British agreement had checks and balances in place to stop that. Would they have worked? Who knows - we didn’t give it a chance to work. However I find the accusation of assuming corruption before it’s even started somewhat breathtaking from the very people who accuse the right wing of racism.

The crossing is actually pretty close.

Oh for goodness sake …. do a little research. Australia had over 50,000 people a year arriving via boat before their sovereign borders policy. They may be remote to us but have you heard of south east Asia???

The reason the Supreme Court ruled Rwanda illegal was because it has a history of violating the principle of non refoulement.

It's outlawed by both international and national law and therefore meant Rwanda couldn't be used.

Sunak brought in some legislation after the court decision which was meant to mitigate this, which was unchallenged because it was scrapped.

It was a white elephant.

Spend a couple of days in Dover and then tell us that!

The main problem would have been individual cases with the ECHR which goes back to the op.