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?

It’s a complex issue.

i would say that people do get all upset when they hear about “hotels” becaue they think asylum seekers are staying in lovely places having holidays thst they can’t afford.

it’s really really not like that. They’re sub standard hotels which they can’t leave and are watched by security. They often don’t have the basic necessities unless a charity gives them.

They are grim and depressing places.

The fact they are in hotels is due to a basic government failure to set up operational housing for asylum seekers. It’s not some lucky lottery win.

It's a useful distraction from the shit show the government have created, plus the racists that vote for them do want to stop people coming here. And not out of compassion (none of them are arguing for safe legal passage for refugees).

The whole royal soap opera is all about distraction too.

We Brits are like toddlers, so easily manipulated by politicians.

Erm some of the hotels are 4 star and people can come and go as they please.
Pity our own homeless people dont get the same treatment

I have no idea whether I'd put it in my top 5 priorities, but I'd certainly put it in my top 10.

I think we need three things:

1. a legal route to claiming asylum from outside the UK;

2. quick and fair processing of asylum applications - both for those who are already here and for those who apply through the new legal route. For those who are here, a) the ability to work while their applications are being processed and b) proper care to be taken of children, especially those who are unaccompanied. It is simply horrifying how many children are going missing;

3. clear measures that act as a deterrent to those who would not meet the requirements necessary for asylum to be granted and are really economic migrants. This would
   include swift deportation to their home country.

Obviously we couldn't do this unilaterally, but ideally, we would also have international agreement that the majority of European countries take their 'fair share' of those who are granted asylum by those countries (according to agreed criteria) - and contribute their 'fair share' of the cost of processing claims. Ideally we would include all European countries but Russia and Ukraine would obviously be out at the moment.

We hear a lot about the cost of housing asylum seekers but I have absolutely no idea whether the UK is shouldering a disproportionately large burden compared to other European countries.

@JoonT you might only see men, but asylum seekers crossing the channel are clearly not all men. They are definitely large majority men, but many are women and some are children. It's not surprising to me that young men are more likely to try to cross than women and children. Should young men not be allowed to claim asylum?

Don't believe everything you read @RoseslnTheHospital

All the sources that I can find state figures around 80 to 90 percent male. So, as I said, majority male, but not all. Women and children do cross in small boats. It's just patently wrong to suggest they don't. If you don't think those stats are correct maybe you could indicate why?

@Fifthtimelucky You make some good points, but
This would include swift deportation to their home country.
Often suggested - but actually very difficult. They will likely have destroyed any passport/ID they had and may not be telling the truth about where they are from. The country they cite as "home" may refuse to take them back and/or airlines or other carriers may refuse to take them. It's really not easy.
Also - none of your quite reasonable suggestions are what Rishi is suggesting - he seems to be saying he's going to pass some new laws.

This, absolutely.

The government could easily stop this, or reduce it massively, if they opened up asylum application to those overseas, via our embassies or by having dedicated points where people can apply.

Of course, if we were still in the EU we'd be able to apply the "first safe country" principle, so some of this is another "Brexit benefit". And a bloody expensive one, at that.

Yes absolutely

That's what's so wrong about it

Do you think the government would house homeless people if they refused to house these other people? Or if they housed these people in tent villages or similar? The two things are not connected. The government hasn't had an effective strategy on dealing with homelessness for a decade.

The fact that these kinds of hotels are being used is because the government hasn't had an effective strategy on asylum claimants for a decade either. Just slogans and pointless initiatives that don't address the actual issues but sound good to voters that hate and resent asylum seekers and immigrants.

No one hates them imo

It's just relentless and it is costing a lot of money that should be spent on the people already here

We have a cost of living crisis

It's a global issue. The cost of living crisis is a global issue. The UK takes much fewer asylum claimants than many other countries. As a member of the global community the UK has a duty to be responsible for asylum seekers, otherwise the issue and cost is borne by countries that happen to be next to those that generate asylum seekers/refugees.

I disagree, we have taken so many migrants into the UK since the 90s and we are a small island. It is unsustainable

Well it's a matter of fact, not opinion. We don't have a huge net migration rate, our population is ageing and our birth rates low. We need young working age people. Legal immigrants including those granted asylum (about 75% or so of those that claim) are long term net contributors to our society.

It's no surprise we have a low birth rate, as our young people can barely afford the cost of housing and they don't qualify for social housing . They are run ragged trying to work and pay for child care

Do we really need anymore people, how about looking at who is already her and upskilling them first

RosesintheHospital - That's not what I am saying at all, but it needs for countries to work together and I don't think that will ever happen. The crossings are completely out of hand, under 2000 people in 2019 and 3 years later that figure has risen to over 40,000. Our population has risen by 9 million in the last 25 years, France by 4 million and Germany 2 million. We cannot just let anyone in who wants to come and live here, it's just not viable.

So we are taking more people than France and Germany even though they are bigger countries

No, France and Germany take more people than the UK.

www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-in-the-uk.html

Germany, France, Spain and Italy take 70% of asylum applicants across the EU and the UK.

And UK population growth is predicted to slow in the coming years, taking till 2045 to reach 71 million.

www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-population-growth-slow-dramatically-2022-01-12/

Don't forget that any figures relating to net migration include all immigration that comes from pre authorised entry into the country by those with visas or other permitted entry. So not just asylum claimants,

Woodhill - Well according to statistics last year 63,089 people claimed asylum in the UK, Germany 164,925 and France 112,860. I don't know how many of those applications were successful in each country but the UK does grant asylum to more people percentage wise than Germany and France. And how many of those failed asylum seekers in Germany and France come across to the UK illegally, that's what needs to be sorted out.

You also have to take into account ageing populations and birth rates.

Then you could argue that we take a high percentage of non asylum seekers such as the citizens from Hong Kong or India etc

9 million is a lot of people

Net migration includes work visas too so I guess you’d have to look at the figures

I admit I had no idea about the 9m v other

Yes, it really is, concern about this was clearly a driver behind Brexit (the outcome of which led to a number of us losing rights and income), it’s costing loads to house them and it’s affecting communities as the government is co-opting hotels into housing them in tourist areas. I’d say the need to sort this out is easily top 5 and it’s ridiculous that a government hasn’t been able to sort this out before now.

Of course, if we were still in the EU we'd be able to apply the "first safe country" principle, so some of this is another "Brexit benefit". And a bloody expensive one, at that.
We (almost) never applied that when we were in the EU. The upswing in boat crossings is because the previous government (and the French) tackled the problem of people getting into lorries.