The boats ..can we chat about it

[Grumpybird4]

4 more years of a labour government,so nothing is going to change,it's only going to get worse ..help me make sense of it please.
Where are they all going to live , where is the money coming from to house them and feed them and pay their bills..do they bring their families over when they have gained asylum here ,do we have enough Doctors appointments, hospital appointments and housing .
My husband supports open boarders ,he says there is enough money in the UK to house all whom want to come here ..but his argument for that is the royal family need to go ,and free up their money..
But that's not going to happen so there isn't actually enough housing or money.if there was we wouldn't have families in temporary accommodation for years ,and the government wouldn't be trying to cut pip if there was enough money.
My husband says when the UK goes round invading other countries it creates displaced people with no homes ,those are the people on the boats and we should help them all we can.
Government is now saying we should take the people in ,who live in the Garza strip , Palestine..yeah they definitely need help.
But all I hear is budget needs cutting..yet more people arrive .
Selfishly I have two disabled DC who will never live alone .they are going to need a council flat and help ,or assisted living..I'm worried sick for their future.
Worried reform will get in and strip all disability benefits
Worried about the amount of people coming in and the lack of homes for them and how that will effect my children.i know that's selfish..but we all want to put our families first .
I have great sympathy for the people coming over on the boats ,but I don't understand where the women and children are ,I just see men in the photos
So if it's safe to leave women and children behind,it's safe for men to stay and try to make a life in their own country
My husband says that whole family's club together to find the money to send a young man here for a better life ...but I don't get that ..how are they going to pay the bills once granted alyslum..two people on good income can't keep heads above water with cost of living.
I lie awake at night worried and feeling like a bad person for having these thoughts ..no one wants to discuss it ..I'm trying to understand the governments thinking,but I can't make sense of it ..what is the governments plan long term for these people,regarding housing,is there going to be enough for everyone

UK doesn't have "mass uncontrolled immigration".
Only a tiny % of net immigrants come thru irregular routes like boat crossings.

UK has high net immigration because of large numbers of people coming to Uk via highly regulated procedures. Most because of employment, some are students (which means they spend large amounts of their foreign money in UK and prop up the university sector, hoorah!) and some are relatives / married / dependents of the first category.

The boats are scary because people die using that route.

It's criminal gangs acting with impunity in trafficking and human slavery which is the problem. Once these people arrive here, they are pursued by the traffickers/slavers for repayment of the debt. If you let them work, they will be giving money to criminal gangs.

Vote REFORM.

If we don’t stop these illegal men entering the country, this country will become a shitty as the countries they’ve left.

God no
Biggest pack of lies since trump

The pressure on Europe's borders is only going to intensify. Africa has the highest birth rate in the world, and the African population is going to double – just as climate change gets worse.

The UK doesn't have massive uncontrolled immigration?! Are you joking? I don't need to read the statistics, I only need to walk outside my front door. My home town has been transformed. Everywhere I look I see groups of young immigrant men wandering around in the middle of the day. In fact, a friend no longer goes into town because she feels scared. My local woods have been hacked down to make way for two giant new estates, and a second massive estate has been built at the other end of the village. I'd say at least half the people who've moved onto those new estates were not born in this country. Now we've been told the fields in the centre of the village are going to be built on as well. The traffic is so awful I have to carefully time my trips to the shops. At times I feel like I'm suffocating.

As for the students, my friend's son in law works for a university admission department. He often says that the system is being exploited. People apply for courses, turn up to one or two lectures and then vanish. But they don't leave the country. My home town (Colchester) is near a university. All the housing estates around the university have been overwhelmed with immigrants. Whole areas of the town have been transformed. I suspect many of the people living here got into the UK by exploiting the student visa system.

But Mr U turn is so honest? They aren't called Liebour for nothing.
Reform are the only party who will take immigration seriously.

Too late.

Are you under the impression that it’s not illegal entry if they subsequently claim asylum?

It's against the Refugee Convention to penalise an asylum seeker for the way they've entered a country. An asylum seeker is not illegal.

I'll be first in line. I hear their councillors are doing a really good job.

Your husband is nuts

Absolutely agree 👍

Yeah that figures, because he’s living in cloud cuckoo land and it seems like his world view hasn’t evolved since he was 18 years old. Let me guess, he’s massive fan of Corbyn too…

Respectfully I strongly disagree, also with the narrative that "the rich" are leaving Britain. This isn't true, it's fear mongering.

What’s your evidence for making this claim? There’s been so much coverage of this issue in The Times and The Financial Times lately, I don’t think they’re fear mongering. Also, this is is just anecdotal but my mother in law is good friends with a jewel dealer who works out of London, and when she came round to our place for lunch towards the end of last year, she also said many of her richest clients were abandoning the UK, for good. It’s negatively impacting her business. This had been the first I’d heard of it.

An excerpt from an article in the FT a couple of days ago about the Hauser and Wirth people relocating to Switzerland.

“Some, such as steel billionaire Lakshmi Mittal and Egyptian industrialist Nassef Sawiris, have either left the UK or are planning to depart because of the abolition of the non-dom regime, announced by chancellor Rachel Reeves in October 2024. The regime allowed British residents who declared their permanent home as being overseas to avoid paying UK tax on foreign income and gains. Those who have decided to stay will see their worldwide assets potentially subjected to UK inheritance tax at 40 per cent.

The Financial Times has previously reported that Reeves was exploring reversing her decision to charge UK inheritance tax on the global assets of former non-doms, following a spate of departures and lobbying by the City of London.

Others have left because Reeves reformed agricultural property relief and business property relief in last year’s Budget too. The change means that those with large estates or significant companies that were previously exempt will pay inheritance tax at 20 per cent on assets above £1mn from April 2026.”

I’ll ask you again, which part of anything you’ve said contradicts anything I said?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you think entering the UK on a small boat and bypassing immigration control isn’t illegal because the Refugee Convention says we shouldn’t penalise asylum seekers for entering illegally?

Well, we don’t penalise asylum seekers for entering the UK illegally, but it very much is still a criminal offence, albeit one they aren’t prosecuted for. I put a link above to the relevant act. If you don’t believe me, feel free to read it for yourself. I repeat, the ‘illegal’ part does not refer to an asylum applicant’s status in the UK, but their method of entry to the UK. If you don’t understand what the laws are, they’re all there on the .gov website.

It's not illegal for an asylum seeker to enter a country in order to seek refuge, therefore they cannot be penalised for it. I quoted the relevant section from the Refugee Convention.

I'd appreciate it if you could stop asking me to re read what you post as I've read it. The Illegal Immigration Act was written with the defunct Rwanda scheme in mind, sidestepping the Refugee Convention.

The Rwanda scheme was scrapped and many sections of the Act have not been put into practice, largely because they don't tally with international law.

@MiloMinderbinder925

And I’d appreciate it if you’d stop arguing with me when you clearly don’t understand immigration law, but we can’t all be happy now, can we?

The current Act may have been prepared with Rwanda in mind, but a) parts of it have been amended since then and b) what do you think was in place before anyone ever thought of sending applicants to Rwanda? Did you think there wasn’t any legislation concerning illegal entry for asylum applicants before then? The offence was set out in the 1971 Rules, and quite possibly before that too. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/powers-and-operational-procedure/irregular-or-unlawful-entry-and-arrival-accessible#:~:text=Entry%20without%20leave%20is%20a,UK%20without%20formal%20written%20leave.

If they’re rescued at sea, or they land on a beach and stay there until they’re picked up by the authorities, then they’re treated as arriving passengers. If they land on the beach and then leave before Border Force get there, then they’re considered to have entered illegally, irrespective of whether or not they claim asylum. They aren’t penalised for it because we accept there’s no alternative to travelling here, not because it’s not illegal. It’s dealt with administratively rather than through the judicial system https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/powers-and-operational-procedure/irregular-or-unlawful-entry-and-arrival-accessible#illegal-entry-or-irregular-arrival-definitions-and-legal-basis

If you’re still convinced after reading the legislation that it’s not possible for asylum seekers to enter the UK illegally then I don’t know what to say to you, other than you’re wrong.

@WilfredsPies

I've quoted the relevant section from the Refugee Convention which clearly states that an asylum seeker does not commit an offence by entering a country by any means to claim asylum.

If you’re still convinced after reading the legislation that it’s not possible for asylum seekers to enter the UK illegally

Asylum seekers aren't committing a crime by entering a country to claim refuge. If something isn't a crime, it's not illegal.

Asylum seekers aren't 'illegals'. They're in the country legitimately.

Bloody hell, you’re persistent.

You’ve misinterpreted the paragraph from the refugee convention. It literally refers to illegal entry in the first line. And you still aren’t understanding that it is dealt with administratively, rather than criminally. Now, just because we deal with it administratively does NOT mean that it’s no longer an offence, irrespective of your viewpoint.

I‘ve shown you the relevant legislation, I’ve explained the different ways that people landing in small boats are categorised depending on whether they evade immigration or not, and I don’t know how else to explain this to you without drawing a diagram. You are clearly convinced otherwise, but you do not know better than Parliament what does and does not constitute an offence under immigration law, so unless you work for immigration (in which case, you need to speak to your HO or SEO urgently in order to arrange some refresher training), or you’re an immigration solicitor (in which case, God help whoever has you for a legal rep because you don’t understand the basics and you need reporting to the SRA or OISC) then I don’t want to argue with you any more because it’s utterly pointless and I don’t have the patience.

Asylum seekers aren't 'illegals'. They're in the country legitimately Yes, I know! I haven’t suggested otherwise! They don’t have any leave, but they do have a lawful basis of stay until their claim, and any subsequent appeals, are concluded. I’ve never called an asylum seeker an ‘illegal’ because it is not the person who is illegal, it is (potentially, if they fall into that category) their method of entry.

I can only say that it needs to be assessed on an individual basis. I would also be wary about the veracity of the 'facts' being spruiked by the Reform party.

I just can’t believe that people still really think the boats (full of fit young men of fighting age) are coming to the UK to escape conflict. The situation is madness! I do like Reform, I do not read the Daily Mail but I am able to think critically about difficult situations. Why are we obsessed with trying to convince ourselves that all these men are victims. The cognitive dissonance is real!

Sorry I meant I DO NOT like reform! I don’t think they would be capable of running the country.

Nobody sane believes in open borders. Even the hug a hoody greens who would like to teach the world to sing accept it’s not possible until we achieve a global utopia.

There are 8 billion people on the planet. There are 70 million people in the uk. If (a conservative) 1 in 8 people on the planet wanted to live in Britain that is a billion people. So if 1000 million people moved to a country with a current 70 million population there would be no country left, no infrastructure, no housing, no food, no drinking water and certainly no benefits. That’s the reality of it.

@Grumpybird4 He genuinely does believe in open boarders do you mean he believes in open BORDERS????