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.

Quite.

This is what I’m trying to understand from posters.

Are they really suggesting unlimited numbers? How many people do they envisage

If not then why wouldn’t the smuggling market continue

Can anyone please explain how the new policy will save money? I'd love to know the details.
When do you imagine this will take place?
Detention centres need to be built and accomodation will continue to be required - how much will that cost, where will they be and where is that money going?
Flights will need to be paid for and arrangements made with the recipient country (doubt theyll do it for free - a reminder we spent £140 million on Rwanda).
The law will need to be tested so that will take time and money.

Its not cheap.
It wont be fast.
And it will never happen.

The application process needs to be faster.
Safe routes need to be set up in conjunction with our neighbours.

I think they know deep down it’s an uncomfortable but essential point, yet they know they’ve pushed the boundaries of the debate so far in an attempt to make everyone else look ‘right wing’ or ‘fascist’ than even mooting a number at this point means they’ll fall into their own trap.

Are you talking about a cap on asylum seekers or immigration in general?

I have never said anything about unlimited immigration. Controlled immigration is needed and a working system would provide that.

I can't give you numbers as I don’t know them.

But this thread is about asylum seekers, about less than 1% of the UK population.

Nobody is saying that numbers should be unlimited.

ideally their would be a safe way for people to apply for asylum from the British embassy in whatever country and for the application to be processed before they step foot in the country - meaning only those with successful applications would be allowed to enter the country.

at the moment we have massive numbers of people stuck in limbo waiting for their applications to be processed. Statistics suggest that many of those applications will be successful but those whose applications aren’t will be removed from the country. Than those who are given leave to remain will be able to work and become part of the country rather than being left in hostels where they aren’t allowed to work.

@Sirzy @DuncinToffee so who would you be saying no to then, if there’s a cap?

In all cases? So the UK should not have given refuge to Jewish men fleeing Nazi Germany? Or to Kurdish men when Kurdish people were being murdered by Saddam Hussein?

I think so because they were part of a targeted program of genocide against a small number of people. German men per se, no.

Yes it’s about asylum and therefore safe routes.

Nobody is saying that numbers should be unlimited.

Ok so it seems everyone is agreed on a cap.

Fine I expect voters in general would get behind a number. It may differ between groups but there’d be a reasonable area voters would go for somewhere.

What happens when you reach the number and what do the people who get a no after this do?

Will they say fine or will smugglers still have a market from which they can profit? If so boats will still arrive plus capped numbers and we’ll have both. Boats won’t stop with capped numbers unless you implement harsh measures.

Those who want a cap but not measures how will you stop smugglers?

Again, are you talking about a cap on asylum seekers or immigration in general

I would not put a cap on asylum seekers.

To the OP - because I can't read 500 comments where at least a third will be xenophobic or lack humanity - no, it won't put them off. If they are willing to risk the channel on a rubber boat and everything else they've had to endure making their way from Syria this will still be worth the gamble.

My view is that if they won't let them in then the UK should set up aslym centers in mainland europe and treat asylum seeks decently and humanely. The world is literally crawling with UK citizens who have settled elsewhere in various conditions and situations. I also think it's quite racist that the doors are swung open for the white european refugees from Ukraine, but if you are brown and come from the middle east you are treated as a criminal.

Ok so not everyone is agreed. You would have unlimited. All these posts are about asylum not other immigration.

Is there a point at which you feel the numbers are too high?And if millions feel they would like to escape where they are is it ok?

So what is your answer? What would your cap on asylum seekers be?

I put it below I expect there will be a number voters accept and we’ll do routes but we’ll also see harsh measures put in place as smugglers will still operate once you put a figure in place.

@Moonicorn the problem with only bringing women and children is that many women are untrained and/or unable to speak English which would mean they are unable to work, meaning they would need to be supported by benefits which would cost the tax payer even more money.

And would you continue with the boat ‘system’ or do something to proactively bring all the men here?

I don’t think that matters. First priority should be taking the most vulnerable - women and children. Second priority is then finding a system which works for both the refugees and
host countries. The fact they bring their children, who I see as valuable future assets, makes this worth doing for me.

Safe routes

And no discrimination against male asylum seekers.

How are you doing with the parts of the 'international refugee law' you like to get rid off?

For the following countries to reach the same population density as the UK they would need to increase their population by:

France 88 million
Italy 21 million
Denmark 6 million
Ireland 14 million
Germany 13 million
Spain 92 million

The amount that these countries population has increased over the past 12 months is:

UK +0.53%
France +0.22%
Italy -0.15%
Denmark +0.35%
Ireland +1.13%
Germany + 0.32%
Spain +0.04%

Freedomfromguilt do you have a source for those stats please?

I thought it was just tomatoes the UK was struggling to find. Turns out compassion and humanity are in even shorter supply.

These kind of posts don’t really solve the issue though. I’m sure they feel good but that won’t address the practical reality wrt people displaced in large numbers.

Unless you willing to take everyone who applies? If it reaches millions is that ok?

Are people from Ukraine or HK being smuggled into the UK?
If not, why do you think that is?

My country takes everyone who applies who meet the criteria for refugee status, has safe routes, provides free transport into the country from neighbouring countries, and allows family reunification. But then we haven't sold our souls ro right wing extremists.