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?

Which country has that approach worked in please? Where is the model that has achieved significantly lower migration through this policy? I’d love to understand the mechanics of how it worked and the % impact it had on lower migration.

@Skipthisbitthe quote you've shared is talking about the asylum system, not immigration. The aim of it is not to reduce immigration, it is to make the system by which we assess asylum claims more efficient and thus reduce the time people are forced to wait in hotels and the like.

No thank you to safe routes to anyone who applies. Growing up as a child in Kent in the 1970s our population was NEARLY 56 mill. Last census: nearly 70 million. A 14 million increase over 50 years in a landmass that hasn't changed size. As a country we cannot continue to take in anyone who asks. But I am going to ask you @CorneliaCuppwhat county or region you live in.

@CorneliaCuppwho has done what you propose?

I live in a major city and have volunteered with charities that work with asylum seekers.
What you are talking about is legal migration, not refugees. Two totally different things. Asylum seekers make up approx 6% of immigrants to the UK.

Done what, built an efficient system? Well, one example would be Switzerland, where claims can be processed in 24 hours in some cases. Is that what you mean?

Whilst I think your volunteering is admirable, you have to understand and accept that not everyone shares your sentiments. The Labour party certainly doesn't. Offshore processing would only lead to MORE applications and MORE asylum seekers being granted refugee status. Why do you want to increase the numbers? Lunacy!

But we do. 10000 turn up on boats tomorrow, the next day, the next day etc. It doesn't matter then what boundaries or restrictions we set as a country. And we are allowed and must be allowed to decide as a country what our, ie UK as a country, net immigration looks like. Is that a point system? Skills set ? Or x refugees per year. I actually don't care what that looks like - it needs to be decided by Parliament or democratic process. What i do object to is people from outside this country deciding they will live HERE, no matter what else we might need or want as a country. So I don't agree with you - there is unbounded illegal immigration into this country and it is harmful. Just to be totally clear: we have a fabulous multi-cultural society which is tolerant, and our immigration policy must reflect that multi-culturalism.

It would doubtless lead to more applications, but as a previous poster said, that doesn't need to mean more successful applications. It would also completely destroy the human traffickers demand and make the whole process more humane and less dangerous.
And I completely understand not everyone shares my point of view!

This. I'd like to give asylum to every girl and woman in Iran and Afghanistan, but it's not possible.

Yes and looking it up they’ve managed to drastically lower asylum grants.

‘The Swiss authorities have been trailing a 24-hour asylum procedure for asylum seekers who have little to no chance of actually being granted asylum over the last six months.

Authorities decided to roll out the project in April across the country after noting that the number of asylum seekers applying for asylum from countries like Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya had sunk by 40 percent. People from those countries have little chance of being granted asylum in Switzerland.’

Are you for a system that similarly makes the outcomes similar? Ie very unlikely.

Oh come on …… don’t be like the policians and cherry pick your data. In very very limited circumstances, therd is an option for 24 hour turn around.

In the vast majority of cases, in Switzerland they get sent to a Federal asylum centre for up
to 140 days.

And they have 27K asylum seekers per year. The U.K. has 100,000

It's likely worse than that. In 2007 the Independent ran an article questioning the official population data because the supermarkets were flagging it up as being highly likely wrong on the volume of food being sold. Suggestions of between 77 - 80 million back then. In 2025, we're still officially under 70 million.

The truth is its been a free for all since 2004. We have no idea how many are here, we have no ID cards and, as a result, a thriving black economy. We have been spectacularly mismanaged.

Blair wanting to rub the right's nose in diversity? How's that working out when Farage is likely going to be the next PM. What a mess.

You do know that the majority of asylum seeker applications are successful, don't you? Over 75%. So a million people apply for asylum using offshore processing, and if 75% of those are successful, that's 750,000 people coming to the UK a year, on top of other types of immigration. How on earth could that be sustainable?

This.

Is that a reason not to try and make our asylum system more efficient? What is it exactly that you object to about that aim?

Why did Blair want to do that? It’s bizarre.

Where on earth did you get 750,000 from?

@EasternStandard

From 2009.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12610177.mass-immigration-political-gain-says-adviser/

Employers check employees right to work by asking for a valid ID (passport). You don’t need an additional Id card. The black economy are not checking rights to work clearly.

75% of asylum applications are successful. If the UK were to process applications offshore, how many people do you think would apply? Would the numbers be less than or greater than the numbers we currently have?

@Pinkfluffypencilcase Do you understand what the black economy is? It's not race terminology.

As I said in a previous post, most likely greater, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the number of successful applications would be greater. The 75% is not a given.
The government and experts in the field need to decide a criteria for assessment that protects those most in need and is humane and proactive, whist also being rigorous and through.

To be fair to Blair (can’t quite believe I’m writing that!) but to be fair, no one could have predicted the impact of technology and mobile phones. No one could have predicted the power of the internet to connect people from around the world. In the poorest areas in the world, some one has a mobile and access to WhatsApp and can find a pathway to the west. I vividly remember seeing the daily mail headline screaming that immigration could reach 60,000 when the Schengen stuff was being discussed and thinking fgs don’t be ridiculous…..little did we know

Of course. Hence my post replying to pp regarding IDs.