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.

@jgw1
I think a more even distribution of refugees would be an excellent idea.
You are no doubt aware that, that would mean countries like the UK that take due to their geographical location relative few refugees taking more?
Evenly distributing refugees around the world makes absolutely no sense and would be downright cruel in lots of cases. Are you genuinely suggesting that a refugee from Ukraine could be arbitrarily sent to literally anywhere in the world to meet some random quotas when it is blindingly obvious that the vast majority of genuine refugees seeking temporary refuge would choose to stay in a safe neighbouring country that is most likely to be culturally similar and have a large contingent of fellow refugees in a similar situation.

Put yourself in their shoes. If you had to flee the UK tomorrow, would you rather go to Ireland or be sent to Somalia, China or India? There are obvious problems relating to language, cultural/religious differences and being isolated in a country you are completely unfamiliar with. Also if the conflict was to end, it would be much harder to reintegrate refugees back to their homeland if they and their children have had potentially years somewhere so different.

So actually it makes complete sense that neighbouring countries take the vast majority of refugees. The rest of the world should play a much bigger role in supporting these neighbouring countries financially and practically. We should not be randomly divvying up asylum seekers between countries.

@Threelefthands Economic commentators reckon that Alistair Darling acted in the right way and was turning things round. Sadly the incoming government decided to implement austerity and hence a huge economic downturn. All ideological, small state obsessed rather than the right solution. Lots and lots of research backs this up.

Scared and in danger of their lives.

Do you think safe routes will stop smugglers?

Or add to the boats arriving.

How many are you thinking? Does everyone who applies get asylum. Is there a number where you would cap it and what happens to those who don’t fit criteria?

If people can say how many they are willing to take it would be useful. Is it unlimited?

Yes people smugglers are known for being super helpful by locating themselves in large, easy to identify buildings with clear signage. 100% agree.

As a country we put blood, sweat, tears and phenomenal sums of money into making Afghanistan a safer place by neutralising the enemy and training/equipping their army. When it came to it they ran off like cowards and refused to even try to defend it. If they won’t do anything for themselves, why should we do any more? Women and children aside that is, who are once again paying the price.

I expect we’ll need tough measures and we will have some safe routes set up but there will be numbers attached

Oh that’s okay then 🙄 imagine if all armies in history had done that - who on Earth would be in charge of the planet now? Your average Ukrainian taxi driver has shown more courage. And why did the 500 British army personnel who died in Afghanistan not desert? Stop making excuses, they had a duty and they failed through cowardice. And now they want us to cover their backsides as they desert their families.

Why don't you make a start and say how many you are willing to take?

What is up with the deflection..

Ok easier question, is it unlimited or do you want a cap?

The actual number isn’t as key as whether a cap is applied at all. A number can easily be lowered or increased but once you have a number you need to decide who and what do those people who get a no do?

Whether it’s 10k, 20k or 40k what happens to those over the number?

If it makes these people think twice about leaving France and risking their lives then I think it is a good thing

Oh shut up.

Uk and America put all "blood, sweat and tears" into being in Afghanistan so they could put opium back in body bags.

Who do you think supplied all the weapons to the Taliban? Why are the majority of the "Taliban" fighters who grew up in USA, UK, Pakistan? Where have they been trained?

Because I know that a lot have been trained by USA themselves.

UK and USA do not help just for good will, it always benefits us somehow. Or benefits the big guys in charge somehow.

There are still villages in Afghanistan fighting against the Taliban but of course media won't tell you that anymore.

They got what they wanted and left the country in a state.

Let's not forget how many soldiers raped afghan women and children too.

So shut the hell up

Hopefully any new measures will discourage people fleeing France not to use makeshift dinghies to cross busy shipping lanes.

Ok me personally:

I would have a cap of around 20,000 women and children a year. Teen boys would need bio checks to confirm age first if there’s any doubt they’re over 18. I would set up collection points around Italy/Turkey with information printed in the language of their countries of origin, about what they can expect from the U.K. in terms of welfare support, counselling and accommodation, and what would be expected from them in terms of a view to working and sending their children to school after a 3-6 month ‘settling in’ period. It would then be their choice whether to apply. No men accepted while women and children are still homeless and unsafe, and nobody accepted from countries without active conflict.

I would be happy for taxpayer’s money to fund this scheme, as if we can integrate children and educate them early enough I see them as a long term asset to the country. Women have suffered enough frankly.

The men come alone because the journey is too dangerous for their wives and children. They hope to get here, claim asylum, and then have their wives and children get here by safe means.

My voluntary work brings me into contact with men who have arrived here by boat, and many are quite traumatised, not just by the boat bit, but by the violence and trauma that the overland journey involved.

But their country of origin which is forcing them to make such a perilous journey, isn’t too dangerous to leave their family in? For years potentially?

Well said@vanillamint

So you think it would be better for the women and children to undertake the dangerous, traumatic journey?

Analytical thinking skills aren’t strong on here are they? No, I would rather the men stayed put and at least attempted to liberate their country or, if they absolutely do not have the conviction to do this, brought their family with them and stopped in a safe country that doesn’t require a
channel crossing - of which there are many.

Your answer, deary me 😂 are you aware the channel crossing isn’t mandatory for anybody who leaves a war zone?

I think there are better ways to let people in and help them get to work more quickly and everyone might have different numbers.

If posters are for a cap rather than unlimited then there will be people who meet the criteria but are a no.

Firstly how do you decide between people who meet the criteria and secondly what do those who get a no do?

I’d say there’s still a market for those people to be smuggled and you’d still get boats. You can have numbers arriving safely but it’s likely you need harsh measures to stop smuggling if there are caps.

Because there has to be a cap, otherwise the country’s infrastructure will get even worse than it is at the moment and we won’t be able to offer a decent quality of life to anybody. This really is the elephant in the room for the ‘uncapped’ crowd. Yet they won’t address it.

So basically, however terrible the situation, however little hope you might have that your children will grow up to be happy and free or even grow up at all, you should just stay where you are and not make any attempt to get out? Even if the country you are living in is persecuting and murdering your people?

No, I would rather the men stayed put and at least attempted to liberate their country

This is astonishingly naive. We're not talking about the Ukraine, here. Nor are countries queueing up to take the women and children from Syria or Afghanistan (or ther countries in conflict) so that their husbands can fight or take the risk of opposing the Taliban.

It's one thing to fight knowing that your family is safe, (and that there's a prospect of winning the war) and quite another risking your life and knowing that if you die your family will be helpless. And if course most countries in conflict aren't getting help from the west to win their wars.

Of course many of those men have an unrealistic view of their future here, and don't realise that it will take years, or that they'll be detained. They're often from rural areas and fed something entirely different by the traffickers. So they think their families will be able to join them in a matter of months.

But if it is safe enough to leave their families there for years and the journey is so perilous why are they leaving in the first place.

My family are immigrants. The country they fled was not safe. A case of when not if they got bombed or were rounded up and sent to the death camps. The journey they undertook was perilous. The first country they came to that was safe was the UK

No one was left behind because the journey was more dangerous than staying.

The women and children should. Not the men and certainly not the army. If you disagree - what do you think will happen to the world if every dictator is allowed to flourish, safe in the knowledge they will face no opposition?