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.

The problem with counting # applications and not # asylum granted is that you get an inflated number that includes all the rejected applications, not to mention the fact that an asylum seeker can apply to multiple countries at once.

Applying isn’t the same as being granted leave to stay.

@poetryandwine* *Talking about me as if I am not here is insufferably rude.

Jewish citizens were not mentioned. That's why I asked for clarification.

The Nazis killed 4,200,000 of their own citizens in Europe, Balkans, France, Belgium and North Africa (that included over 1 million on the Eastern Front.)

No it isn’t.

I think what you are saying is that the proportion of asylum seekers who make it to the UK who are genuinely asylum seekers is higher than in other countries?

Is that correct?

They don’t but it isn’t rocket science to think if they’re choosing to leave a safe country to make a deadly crossing then that’s their choice and frankly an unnecessary one.

Our housing situation is in a bad way, purchase and rental prices are already through the roof. 10s of thousands of immigrants landing every year and requiring housing is only going to put a strain on demand, so expect prices to rocket 😁 for home owners, great. Anyone wishing to get on the ladder, good luck.

We are a small island, already struggling to pay our public sector such as NHS, teachers etc as itvis.... and this increase on demand to services and expenditure can't continue, with zero contribution from mass immigration.

For me it's win win, we're planning to emigrate (legally and self fund) and own multiple properties , I'll cash in and it's not my problem.

There was a poster on this thread earlier suggesting that we should not under any circumstances intervene if a soverign nation decided to kill lots of its citizens.
I take it you would disagree with that?

So you are saying that the UK should break international law?

Italy, Spain, Romania, Denmark, Poland, Sweden, Finland and Norway.
For example, for every refugee Norway took in, we took in 15 refugees.

When did I say that?

Is there a lack of housing in the UK?

How many 2nd and holiday homes are there that could be better used? Certainly in many parts of the country it is these that are causing housing shortages.

For example the Prime Minsiter has 9 homes, why does anyone need more than 1?

I see.

The UK was very well aware of the persecution of Jewish people before war was declared.

hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1938-11-21/debates/133ef530-1ea4-4835-839b-c9889e0481c0/RacialReligiousAndPoliticalMinorities

8 homes, that’ll solve the problem 🙄

Because people want and need rental properties and somebody has to own them and let them?

Getting tired of this fairyland socialism on MN

That’s not what they were saying. They said we can’t take in all refugees coming from war zones. That doesn’t mean “we should not under any circumstances intervene”. And frankly, just sitting there passively taking in survivors that gets to our borders isn’t intervening at all imho.

Intervening usually means bombing, invading and occupying that nation by going to war to topple their government and stop the genocide.

I can understand why it's not "desirable" for asylum seekers to be crossing the Channel on small boats, it's incredibly dangerous.

I suppose the bigger question is how is the UK managing the current influx of asylum seekers and is the country able to provide them with a decent quality of life? I'm guessing the current answers are that no, the UK isn't dealing with asylum seekers well and no, they're not being provided with a decent quality of life.

How can this be changed? Is it due to sheer numbers, overstretched services, etc.? Would rolling out an app similar to the one President Biden has recently introduced on the US's southern border be helpful? Asylum seekers are now required to register and set up an appointment with an immigrant official before they cross the border. Perhaps something like that in Calais would be helpful.

Oh give it a bloody rest will you.

Why are you so bothered about what I think?

I'm done here.

Are those the countries that are larger than the UK?

Norway's population is about 5 million people, so not altogether surprisingly it had significantly fewer refugees than the UK.

Boat crossings are not the best way to get here, they are dangerous for a start and often smugglers employ risky strategies endangering lives whilst raking in huge profits. Then some nationalities are moved by gangs once in U.K., again not good for anyone other than those who make money from crime.

Stopping them seems a good way forward. Whether other routes are established afterwards we’ll see what is said soon.

Yes. Larger by landmass. When we are discussing over or underpopulation, it seems pertinent to look at landmass not the # people already there. As you can probably figure out Norway has a population density of 14 per km2 to our 265 per km2. Also a higher per capita income & wealth than we do.

seems callous and cruel

More callous and cruel than Brits starving, freezing, having their cancer untreated by the NHS and so on?

Tell us there isn't a scarcity of resources, go on.

No, really that it was a previous poster seemed to be saying.
We have to put "our people" first.

I have only visited a small part of Norway on one ocassion, but I suspect the reason its population density is not larger may have something to do with its geography.

There isn't a scarcity of resources in the UK.

There is an inequality problem, that has seen the poor get poorer for more than a decade while those who are richer than anyone could possibly need to be have got richer at an ever increasing rate.

I haven’t done that analysis in terms of comparing acceptance rates.
I am saying it’s useless to count the # of applications because that doesn’t tell you how many refugees a country has actually taken in. You have to look at the # applications accepted to see that figure.

The BBC used # applications per capita as propaganda to give impression the U.K. is doing the least of all…when we aren’t we are #3 out of 32 countries for accepting refugees in absolute terms.

It’s rather like saying there are 2 million job applications submitted in the U.K. and trying to say this means there are 2 million jobs, and jobs are readily available. When there could be only 2000 jobs with 1000 applicants for each job.

There’s both. You cannot argue that the grocery shops shelves are bare because some rich toff bought all the cucumbers.