People in small boats

[EndlessRain1]

With everything that is going on in the UK at the moment, can it really be true that one of the top 5 priorities in the country is to stop "people in small boats"?

I mean, I know a lot of people are against immigration in this form, but in the grand scheme of the shit show this country has been in the last couple of years that is in the top 5 priorities/ actions?

AIBU to think that's insane?

Unfortunately, I think that you are right. Aside from the lack of humanity, the idea that we as a nation should do such a thing really saddens me. It's also alarming that (some) people seem to think it's a realistic option.

Don’t fall into the trap of thinking it’s a lot of people. It’s not. It’s a small but vocal group of nutjobs who don’t realise that saying stuff like that aloud (let alone thinking it) is sick and weird. (Also, the Navy refused to even push back small boats, so no chance at all that they’d use any kind of force.)

Its also important not to conflate opinions like that with the valid concerns that people have about the impact of the government’s policies on asylum seekers on their communities, like access to GP, school places, etc. People raising concerns about the effects on their community are not all calling for migrants to get murdered at sea, and conflating the two as one voice helps no one.

Just been on the news we have27,000 homeless people in the South East, they were referring to UK residents I believe.

@Aaron95 Well I hope you are wrong. I can't fathom how people think it's better that asylum seeks die than come onto these shores.

Which will be caused by a lack of social housing, a lack of affordable rentals, a lack of rental housing in general producing high private rents. Also by the general CoL situation, wages rises being lower than price rises. And so on. A situation that would be happening regardless of the numbers crossing the channel in small boats.

Careful, pointing out facts on here makes you a racist apparently..

@VoiceOfCommonSense where on this thread have posters been called racist for pointing out facts?

And is it pointing out facts like the asylum system is massively underfunded and backlogged and wasting taxpayers money due to the Home Office’s terrible decisions that gets people called racist (no)

Or is it claiming baselessly that all asylum seekers are “illegals” or economic migrants or must be bad because they’re foreign and young that gets people called racist? (Yes, although I’d say “ignorant” also works as well here).

Roses My point is that we cant even house our own people so where are we going to house refugees

Yes I understood your point. My point in response is that is down to deliberate policy decisions by government over the last decade. It won't be changed or improved by lip service quotes from Sunak about passing new laws in an effort to reduce boat crossings. That's not an effective strategy to begin with, plus it does nothing to address the actual issue of a lack of investment in housing.

So, actions that might actually reduce crossings are needed. Like providing legal routes of entry for asylum seekers who are not in the UK, like working with the French to tackle the criminal gangs involved, like sourcing accommodation that isn't hotels or unsuitable barracks, etc etc.

As far as I am aware these things are happening or planned

There are no plans to create legal routes of entry for asylum seekers that are not in the UK (apart from the existing Ukrainian scheme).

@RoseslnTheHospital is there no way to make an overseas application for uk asylum?

I would love this to be the case, but I haven’t heard anything about these plans. Do you have any further information?

The government are theoretically working with the French to increase patrols and intelligence sharing about trafficking gangs, but I don’t know if this has been or will be effective given that it doesn’t really differ from previous deals.

And @RoseslnTheHospital makes a good point about the lack of safe routes. Not only are they very few in number, but the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, which opened last year for these groups of people has only assisted 4 people in the last 12 months.

“those who have assisted the UK efforts in Afghanistan and stood up for values such as democracy, women’s rights, freedom of speech, and rule of law
vulnerable people, including women and girls at risk, and members of minority groups at risk (including ethnic and religious minorities and LGBT+)”

People who should have been helped by this scheme have been living in hiding from the Taliban, and some have made the journey by boat to the UK as the assistance that the UK government promised hasn’t become reality.

Because the journey to the UK is dangerous and physically challenging, it’s not an option for many women and children. So, effectively, the government is prioritising those strong enough to get here on their own, while leaving the women and children to suffer under the Taliban. This is why we need safe routes.

Housed in the community? where though @BewareTheLibrarians ? Where can they be housed? Genuine question as many working people in the SE are struggling to rent homes, everyday on SM you see people begging for help

@StubbleAndSqueak Housed in the community includes hotels and hostels - just to differentiate from detention centres and processing centres.

But I agree with your point about where in the community and that British people are struggling to rent (I’m one of them!) and find social housing. However, I’ve said upthread as well that the blame for this is on the government not providing funding for social housing for so many councils during their 12 year tenure, and for pushing money into private asylum accommodation (and in some cases Tory linked) company’s profits, rather than putting that money into local communities.

Can you imagine the difference if the millions of £ was directed into healthcare and housing in communities rather than the pockets of Clearspring and the like?

@Edinburghmusing I’m not the poster you tagged, but I hope it’s ok to jump in.

Effectively, for most asylum seekers there’s no way to make an overseas asylum application.

I think Suella Braverman’s comments sum it up the best here (the article linked has more context):

Mr Loughton pressed [Braverman] and asked how this hypothetical orphan could get to the UK if they are not from Syria, Afghanistan or Ukraine, which have official programmes for asylum with the UK.

"If you're able to get to the UK you're able to put in an application for asylum," the home secretary admitted.

"If you put in an application for asylum upon arrival that would be the process you would enter."
But Mr Loughton pointed out that they could not get to the UK legally in the first place so said they would be forced to come illegally across the Channel.

Mrs Braverman could not answer how that asylum seeker could come over legally.”

news.sky.com/story/amp/suella-braverman-fails-to-explain-how-asylum-seekers-can-get-to-uk-safely-and-legally-12753780

Oh that’s very interesting and I didn’t realise they all. I suspect most people dont

in Australia there is a theoretical option to apply overseas at least

im quite shocked.

so how does the uk say that it fulfills it’s international refugee obligations??

@RoseslnTheHospital

“So, actions that might actually reduce crossings are needed.”………Agree with this

“Like providing legal routes of entry for asylum seekers who are not in the UK” …..this would be the equivalent of political suicide and would be hugely unpopular. This would likely lead to a huge increase in claims which would need processing.

“working with the French to tackle the criminal gangs involved”…… absolutely agree and wonder why there is not more effort to stop these gangs.

”like sourcing accommodation that isn't hotels or unsuitable barracks” ……good luck with this, there are already millions of people in need of social housing. Sadly those who arrive on boats will join the top of the queue due to having no family or place of residence which rightly and understandably angers uk citizens who feel they should be more of a priority. I agree in an ideal world there would be housing for all and different decisions should and could have been made but at the moment it is not possible.

This would likely lead to a huge increase in claims which would need processing.

Is there any evidence for this? Even if there was an increase in claims that needed processing, one way of using these safe routes is to firstly ensure claims would be processed overseas. So an increase in claims wouldn’t affect any communities in the UK, as all the claims would be decided before people came to the UK.

Educated guess.

I agree it would be easier to process overseas, ideally as close to their home country as possible so that it minimises the chances of them losing Id and documentation on the way.

However, those who do not qualify are still likely to try and come illegally and disappear into the black economy.

I found it incredibly distressing

mainly because the character played by Russell Tovey is my now 24 year old to a T

i’ll never watch it again

but you are completely correct, it was very ‘educational’

But @Lollipop999 if they are biometrically registered overseas (usually fingerprinted) then they wouldn’t be able to try and claim asylum by a different route, and if they came illegally to work on the black market they couldn’t access healthcare, housing and would be at risk of being trafficked/forced labour. That’s not what people want.

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/factsheet-small-boat-crossings-since-july-2022/factsheet-small-boat-crossings-since-july-2022

Since May 2022 42% are Albanian. And 95% of those are male.
Albania is considered to be a safe country so why should the UK grant them asylum?

The most xenophobic/anti-immigration people I know live as far from an immigrant as it’s possible to live, it’s an entirely abstract fear. All Tory Brexiters of course.

Yes it's not fair on those already here working and paying into the system

They should have priority