to think it's irresponsible and reckless to accept large numbers of migrants when

[wonderingminds]

All over the country lots of factories are closing down and there is a serious shortage of housing.

YouTheCat, from the migration observatory at Oxford Uni.

www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/labour-market-effects-immigration

UK studies find that immigration has small impact on average wages but more significant impacts along the wage distribution: low-waged workers lose while medium and high-paid workers gain.

immigration was found to have adverse effects on employment, labour market participation and unemployment of UK-born with intermediate education (defined as O-level and equivalent) and a positive impact on employment outcomes of UK-born workers with advanced education (A-levels or university degrees).

Or, to put it another way, part of the reason why the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer is that immigration allows the rich to pay those they employ less and divert the money saved into their own pockets and the pockets of their senior staff.

morally yes we should help them. those refugee camps are hideousToo many in this country take take take

Like who kilmuir?

OhforGodsake "...that I've thought Cameron has got it right by letting only families into the UK..."

He might only be inviting families into the UK, but anyone who gets into the UK can lodge an application for asylum and it will be considered on its merits. That includes an awful lot of single men coming via France and Belgium.

We already have controlled immigration. There's a points system and if you don't meet the requirements of the rules, you don't get in. Simple. If you're talking about including asylum seekers, or people who can't get a visa but want to come here anyway within that definition, it's absolutely impossible and could never work.

It is physically impossible to close our borders unless you close all the air and sea ports and patrol anywhere a small boat or aeroplane could land and manage to see it off British waters/airspace before it does land. Oh and in light of the chap who managed to walk through the tunnel, that would need to be blocked up as well. If someone wants to get into the UK and they have enough money and determination, the chances are, they'll eventually manage it. Whether it's in the back of a lorry, coming in as a visitor and either overstaying their visa or claiming asylum upon their arrival, or using counterfeit documents. The second they enter the UK, they are able to either disappear or lodge an asylum claim that has to be considered while they're here to ascertain whether they qualify for refugee status.

How do you control numbers in that scenario? You can't send them back to their country of origin to wait there for their claim to be considered because you could be sending them back to certain death; they have to stay here until a decision is made on their claim. The Dublin Convention isn't applicable in the vast majority of cases, so they can't be returned to Europe. Even if refused asylum, they might not be returnable to their country of origin. It's impossible.

Sn0tnose, I think you're very, very wrong in thinking anybody who wants to get here will. A small number might, but to say that we might as well just give up trying to control numbers because some get in is absolute nonsense, and tantamount to saying because a few thousand travel in each year we might as well let in half a million and stop even bothering to try to control our borders the way Germany has done is ridiculous.

And incidentally, a lot can be sent back to their country of origin now. If the country they came from is deemed safe (eg Sierra Leone) they can just be sent straight back.

Bill I accept that I should probably be asleep instead of debating UK immigration policy with strangers on the Internet, but I'm really struggling to see how you got that from what I wrote.

Of course we should be trying to control numbers. And to a very large extent, we do. Visas are not handed out willy nilly to anyone who asks for one. UK passport control is located in France, not Dover. Freight vehicles are searched using various bits of kit. Enforcement teams deal with in country migrants with no legal basis of stay. I'm certainly not suggesting we lay out a giant welcome mat to anyone who fancies bypassing the need for a visa and popping in for a few years. However, the very fact that thousands of people actually have arrived in the UK without passports and/or visas, or have overstayed their visas, or have got visit visas and claimed asylum on arrival, is pretty indicative that this particular area is not one that can be easily or fully controlled, which is the point I was trying to make. If we could control it, there would be no economic migrants, no overstayers and 'Call me Dave' could dictate how many asylum seekers the UK considers applications from, right down to single figures.

I also didn't say (and certainly don't think) that anyone who wants to get here will. I have no doubt that there are millions of people in horrific situations all over the world that would love to start a fresh life in safety in the UK, as well as those living in real poverty who believe our streets are paved with gold. What I actually said is that if someone has enough money (needed to pay the traffickers) and determination (needed to withstand the terrible conditions in places like the jungle in Calais) the chances are that they will eventually manage it. I stand by that and whilst you're perfectly entitled to think I'm very very wrong, it doesn't mean that I am.

What I do take some issue with is your second post. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming you mean that applicants can be returned only after their application for asylum has been considered and any appeal rights exhausted? And that if they originate from a country that requires a travel document issued by the authorities of that country, they either have a passport or they cooperate with the documentation process? I'm also assuming you're referring to Sierra Leone as a designated 'safe' country for certified asylum decisions (which I believe only applies to men, not women, and is actually a deeply unsafe country if you happen to be gay!) Well that's all well and good, but what about people deemed as stateless? Or undocumented nationals of countries that won't issue travel documents? Or economic migrants who disappeared upon arrival and now have British citizen kids and a significant Article 8 claim? I'm afraid I can't link on this iPad but the BBC published an article in August 2015 to do with failed asylum seekers which is definitely worth a read, and obviously the documentation part would apply to economic migrants as well. Also, if you have a look at the Immigration Rules as well (off the top of my slightly hungover head, it's around para 276, Appendix FM, EX1) that deals with Article 8 claims, and the circumstances in which people can qualify to stay. It really isn't as simple as 'sending them back', even if they are from a designated country.