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?

Abuse of compassion must be stopped. Non-negotiable.

73 per cent of boat people are fit, young male economic migrants from safe countries.

Calling them refugees is a fucking insult to people in danger of being killed in their own countries, and bloody rude to migrants who take on shit jobs for rubbish money.

Not to mention the local poor who see their chances of a secure home vanish when a chancer shoots to the top of the queue. Sorry, 25,000 chancers.

This isn’t ok.

What's the evidence that 73% are economic migrants?

Where did you get that stat @Supersimkin7? By 'boat people' I assume you mean asylum seekers?

“Bear in mind, these people are not criminals.”

“The home office do keep a close eye on their location “

“Well there is a really really simple solution:”

• open up safe legal routes so people can apply for asylum from abroad and don't have to risk their lives”

“Easy!”

”Refugees are victims who are fleeing their lives”

just a small selection of examples @CorneliaCupp

So which of those statements is not correct @Watermelonice?

You need to stop spouting stuff you've read in your echo chamber. Nothing you've said is true.

All of them!

Operation Sovereign borders ‘success’ was not on the minuscule number of push backs that were accomplished. Just Google. It was accomplished by a massive external communication strategy in countries where migrants came from and at every point in the journey that stated clearly that if you arrived that way, you would not be granted asylum or legal immigration status no matter what.
The vast majority of asylum seekers or migrants want to be granted rights and citizenship- they do not want to be in a country illegally so by ruling that the case from the outset, they solved the problem.

And then by paying countries like Papua New Guinea to house them in asylum centres until they either chose to return or stay there.

Not the minuscule number of boats they turned around.

They are factually accurate. Until you can offer me proof that they're not, I stand by them.

I’d like to ask Sir Keir exactly how many gangs he’s smashed, and what’s happened to the gang leaders?

Not according to Abbot who claimed a 90% reduction in asylum seekers.

For those citing the Australian experience, is it not the case that Australia allows people to claim asylum from overseas?

Yes we have specific routes for people in crisis as it should be and we can vet and take those we believe are in need and help them without hurting ourselves.

Yes correct. Once asylum seekers knew they had no chance of being granted asylum if they arrived via boat …they stopped. That is what happened? I’m not saying turn backs were not a part of it but the most effective deterrent was the messaging that you gave no chance of being granted any legal right to stay if you arrive in this way.

I’m not sure how many they do but if you control borders as Aus do you can have humanitarian schemes. Eg capped, controlled and vetted and even time limited a bit like the Ukrainian one.

I think most people would be more open to initiatives to "stop the boats" if we were offering safe and legal routes instead. I haven't heard any politicians committing to this.

No that's not what happened. They only started to see a fall in numbers in 2014 after the turn back policy started.

The Australian navy escorted boats out of their water. Alongside this, they came to agreements with other countries to return people "take backs". This coincides more closely with the drop in boat arrivals than the introduction of the offshoring policy in 2012.

It was the plan after controlled borders but you won’t get there without another place like Rwanda and leaving the ECHR.

I might be wrong here but I don’t think we used to have small boats crossing the channel like this. What’s changed in the last few years that means this is now so common? I assume it’s brexit but not sure. It seems like the French used to stop them and now they don’t bother?
Please don’t flame me if I’ve said something completely ignorant! I’m genuinely curious.

We already do this. Afghanistan, Hong Kong and Ukraine were the most recent schemes

Didn't people used to come.ovee in the backs of HGVs? I think they tightened security at Calais which made this much much harder, hence the increase in boat crossings. I might be wrong though!

It’s more to do with clampdown on lorries. We had similar numbers in early 2000s but then there was a suffocation event and public outcry leading to new rules. Traffickers developed other entry. Plus migration has ramped up generally across EU.

Who are these ‘everyone else’ ? My brother-in-law, after being made redundant, and marriage collapse was told to ‘find a room to rent’ - he was unsuccessful (without a job), was signposted to a charity who offered him a tent. ‘Everyone else’ are not being supported. One of the many reasons some resent the hotel stays.

They’ll all claim to be gay and stuff to claim asylum from non war torn countries like Nigeria.

We could refuse them any benefits or accommodation that would solve the problem. Take no more illegal asylum seekers.

If you really, honestly believe there is a simple, easy solution to this problem, that no government has been able to reduce let alone stop, then you need to offer your services to the government.

Although not all will be criminals, there is likely a sizeable proportion that are to some degree.