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?

As you've been told 1000 times. They're not illegal. I certainly don't want people starving in the street, especially children.

The Rwanda programme was illegal and hugely expensive. It also wasn't the same as offshore processing as the idea was to actually settle the Refugees in Rwanda.

I also don't see why our membership of the ECHR would be an issue if we provided safe and legal routes for asylum seekers from all countries.

Id be interested in the evidence for that claim. Care to share it?

24,000 deportations so far by this government, Jul 24 to March 25.

Also, surely safe and legal routes are an essential tool in controlling the borders. People will carry on getting on the boats for as long as there is no other option.

If you want controlled borders and humanitarian schemes as you cited Aus did that’s what it would take.

Otherwise you’ll just have crossings and schemes as we do now.

Yes, but what about everywhere else? People will carry on coming in by boat if there are no alternatives.

How many would it take from which countries to ensure the demand was met?

People are coming to the UK specifically because they have family here, speak English or have heard it's a good place to live. They'll continue coming.

I don't follow your logic. What's stopping us from implementing safe and legal routes now?

Sorry, what's your point exactly?

I understand why people come to the UK, but I was asking what people from countries other than Hong Kong, Ukraine and Afghanistan are supposed to do if they need to claim asylum and there are no safe and legal routes for them. Surely they will carry on getting on small boats until a safer alternative is available?

Come on. They know we are a soft touch and pretty much a joke atm.

Maybe all those in favour should meet on the shores and form a human barricade.

In the space of a year our town has seen unprecedented immigration. They don't speak any English and the men congregate in the town centre and put out chairs laughing and chatting. No women to be seen just groups of men. Wake up.

It’s related to the question below.

How many would it take from which countries to ensure the demand was met?

My point is that even though we have refugee schemes, people come here on boats.

The government believe that if processing hubs are opened there are two issues. One, it will act as a magnet and attract more people, two, they don't want claims processed outside the country.

Processing hubs were under consideration in France but didn't go ahead for those two reasons and the Tories decided instead to create a 'hostile environment' to deter people. Obviously it didn't work.

But are people coming on boats if they are able to access safer alternatives?

Do we get many arrivals from Ukraine or Hong Kong on boats for example?

I'm aware that we do still get Afghans on boats, but I think there are specific reasons for that.

People are able to access safer alternatives. They can claim asylum in other countries and not cross the channel. They're not forced to cross the channel.

The other problem with hubs is that you have an obligation under international law to house people claiming asylum. And detention centres offer a lot of problems as we've seen in the UK. You also can't indefinitely detain people.

Yes, you're right in saying that they could claim asylum elsewhere but that's not the point. If they have relatives in the UK who will help them to rebuild their lives etc, or want to be in an English speaking country etc, then they will carry on trying to come to the UK regardless.

I understand the point about detention centres but perhaps if we got our act together, we wouldn't need to detain people indefinitely.

Not necessarily, some do actually stay in France, learn French and travel to see their families.

Processing asylum takes a long time because you need evidence that you have a well founded fear of persecution and people fleeing often don't have documents.

If someone is a failed asylum seeker, you need to organise with their country of origin for them to go back.

You can't detain people indefinitely as it's illegal and detention has been proven to have a detrimental effect on mental health. It's also susceptible to human rights abuses as we've seen at Yarl's Wood.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33043395

How many people did we take under those schemes? and I know we vetted for the Ukrainian scheme.

If the demand is met then you won’t get crossings. Which comes back to how many say Sudanese, Afghans, Iranians, Syrians and so on will you need to take to meet demand?

I don't know if I'm honest, and I'm not suggesting that we could or even should meet all of the demand. However, I do think we need to provide safe and legal routes as part of a longer term solution.

That’s why it won’t work though. If you don’t meet the demand the traffickers can sell crossings and under international law they will still need to be processed.

You'd get both. Which is why Aus can control borders plus do controlled schemes.

Why not
Refugees- apply to embassies in first safe country, verified Refugees can then be forwarded on safely, settlement loans only ( we manage to track students), to provide housing, no social housing eligibility. No benefits but allowed to work from day 1, permanent right to remain not allowed, only until safe to return.

Economic migrants- visa requirement for required skills. No right to remain, no right for family to remain, insurance requirements for healthcare and education. No benefits, loans only or required to leave. No housing eligibility, must be self supporting.

Illegal migrants, detained and removed, no right of appeal. Presumed country of origin if they destroy identity papers. Make it a bad idea to get rid of papers.

Those with drive and determination would make it work. Those who are undesirable would be put off if there is no reward.

@wastingtimeonhere

Presumed country of origin

Thanks for the laugh 😁

https://www.migrationcentral.co.uk/p/uks-first-migrant-crime-report

Migrant crime statistics

https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/unemployment-and-economic-inactivity/unemployment/latest/#by-ethnicity

Unemployment rates