Is threatening illegal immigrants going to stop them coming?

[LadyGAgain]

Channel migrants face lifetime ban on returning to UK www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64848101

I read this with horror. I know we are a tiny island with limited resources but this legislation seems callous and cruel. These people are risking their very existence getting on these small boats and to then be locked up and shipped off again to who knows where. Plus the cost to us as tax payers. AIBU to suggest that I don't have a solution but this one seems extreme.

I wasn't being serious. I was taking the piss out of the attitudes of some of the posters here who blame everything on immigration.

I lived in Egypt in the nineties, which large numbers of refugees from neighbouring countries. There was an agreement between the Egyptian government and the UN that Egypt would host them while they applied to various western countries for asylum. I believe the UN provided an allowance to the refugees as they were forbidden to work (but many did). I don’t know if that situation still exists and I don’t know why that couldn’t have happened to help with refugees from Syria etc who could have been hosted by Turkey.

Refugees want to come to the UK via safe and legal routes. Safe and legal routes don't exist, therefore they come on small boats.

PS the reason why public services are completely buckling is NOT because of refugees. There are lots of reasons: chronic underinvestment, not paying people enough money / poor working conditions resulting in high staff turnover, rising cost of living and high childcare costs driving people out of the workforce, an ageing population, ironically Brexit which took away a lot of the people who didn't mind coming here and working for sh*te pay as nurses or care workers etc. ¯\(ツ)/¯

@mak1ngthebestofit Refugees want to come to the UK via safe and legal routes. Safe and legal routes don't exist, therefore they come on small boats.

So what nationality refugees are we talking about and why do they want to come to UK?

@Bumpitybumper Not only do we desperately need immigration to fill all those vacancies, we need all the tax and spending leading to economic growth that the people concerned would bring to us

I fail to see how taking in thousands of anonymous people who have crossed The Channel would fill this gap? Please elucidate.

@Threelefthands for example Iran, Syria, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Sudan... all people who come via small boats and have grants of asylum of over 80%. Obviously they want to come to the UK because they are not safe in their countries... which is the meaning of the term refugee... and they are recognised by the Home Office as not being safe in their countries.....?

..... says the person who has had FIVE children 😂

You haven't answered my question.

Why do they need to come to UK?

Have a look at the map and tell me how many 'safe' countries there are between the Middle East and UK. If they are genuine refugees why do they not stop at the first 'safe' place? Why continue a perilous journey to UK?

@Threelefthands any chance you could point to where in international law it says that refugees have to stay in the first safe country they reach?

Why would you not want to help some of the world's poorest and most desperate people?

All 47 countries in the EU are parties to the European Court of .Human Rights.

So genuine refugees would be accepted by any of these countries. So I ask again, why the need to come to UK?

Why would you not want to help some of the world's poorest and most desperate people?

People that are so 'poor' that they can spend £1,000s to people smugglers to get them to UK are not refugees. they are economic migrants.

@Threelefthands you seem to have failed to answer where it says in international law it says that refugees have to stay in the first safe country they reacch?

Is that perhaps because it doesn't anywhere, and so insisting on it would be illegal. Shall we label the government illegal in the same way they insist on labelling people as illegal?

I think the issue is that if all immigrants went the legal route they'd be waiting years to be processed and many might be declined.

All asylum seekers who arrive in the UK do so by legal routes. There is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker.

They’re probably referring to the Dublin Convention, which was in force when we were in the EU. However, since Brexit the EU has moved on and passed new legislation on handling refugees and asylum claims that have made the Dublin convention obsolete.

I know!

Fucking mind boggling levels of irony in starting a thread bleating about immigrants, with that username. 🙄

Are there any official numbers stating the percentage of successful asylum seekers who have a professional qualification, skilled trade or have attended Higher Education?

What do you actually know about the countries between the Middle East / North Africa and the UK? Lebanon and Turkey have both started mass deportations of Syrians to Syria even though they would likely face torture and be forced to fight in the civil war if they return. Turkey is such a great country that 45,000 people died in the recent earthquakes because they didn't have the resources to rescue them. Lebanon's economy is in freefall. In Sudan refugees are rounded up and detained and then trafficked to Libya or abducted by traffickers from the refugee camp. Libya is hell on earth, refugees are imprisoned en masse and tortured, raped and forced into slavery, it's described by the UN as a state policy of committing human rights abuses against refugees. In Ethiopia there was a civil war in Tigray and refugees in the camps were massacred. In Greece refugees are forced to live in camps without basic safety or they are destitute on the streets, conditions are so bad that the European Court of Human Rights which you mention has actually issued a ruling preventing the UK from returning any refugees to Greece because their treatment there would be inhuman and degrading. Italy, France, Hungary, all these EU countries which you think are so great, have policies of pushing back refugees and preventing them from accessing the country to claim asylum. Italy is actually detaining and fining migrant rescue ships that seek to rescue people from drowning in the sea. In France 40% of asylum seekers including women and children are destitute and again the European Court of Human Rights which you so admire has ruled against them for leaving people on the street..... sorry but what do you actually know about these countries other than that they happen to be located between the UK and the Middle East/North Africa...?

jgw1,
Please give your head a wobble.

Last year (2022) 45,756 people arrived by small boats.
That is the equivalent of adding the population of -Altrincham/Folkestone/Lancaster/Loughborough.

To date 2,900 people have already arrived by boat.

This is not sustainable.

We now have hotels in most seaside towns full of migrants as there is nowhere else to put them.
This is impacting on the local economy, lack of bookings from tourists, sacking of local staff, lack of facilities for locals, not to mention the cost.

We cannot nurse the world.

I don't give a stuff about the International Regulations, our people should not be made to suffer because of other countries problems.

.

@mak1ngthebestofit Why should UK be responsible for the catastrophes of other sovereign nations?

@mak1ngthebestofit again the European Court of Human Rights which you so admire

Where did I say that ??

The EHCR was created in the 1950s when the world was a very different place.

It is now no longer fit for purpose and is a straightjacket that stops this government putting it's citizens first.

I am pleased that you admit that the rule of law is not important to you.
You are no doubt aware that very many other countries take in far more refugees that the UK does at present. Should they stop supporting refugees as well?

Because that's the whole principle of taking in refugees that are fleeing war and persecution. It's in the Refugee Convention which was set up in response to the Holocaust.

Which btw, if you think the UK shouldn't be responsible for other countries problems presumably you also think we should have just let Germany get on with killing their own people in WW2? There were plenty of people at the time who shared your views, it was called appeasement and it didn't work

Presumably we also should not be sending arms and other support to Ukraine as they are a soverign country and should deal with their own problems.

Exactly.

We should not be starting a proxy war with Russia.

It will not end well.

Who started the war in Ukraine?