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.

Good on them.

Why is it more dangerous in the channel rather than off the coast of Australia?

Watching Sunak make his half-hearted speech from his laughable 'stop the boats' podium it occurs to me that this is laying good groundwork for the Reform party at the next election. It'll do bugger all for a party who's been in power for 13 years.

It’d be interesting to know what legal framework Aus has used to implement all the measures which have worked, whilst remaining in UN

Just looking around there was this

The practice of removing unauthorised maritime arrivals in Suspected Illegal Entry Vessels (SIEVs) from Australian waters was introduced by the Howard Government in 2001 and reintroduced by the Abbott Government in 2013.

As it turns out they ARE opening safe routes. It was just published. Happy now?

inews.co.uk/news/migrant-boats-uk-safe-legal-route-open-refugees-2193751

I thought so. Safe routes plus harsh action on boats. Posted that earlier

I would say that is a reasonable decision. I am extremely glad they are shutting down the smugglers.
France get paid tens of millions to allow us on their soil I might add, it’s not a charitable arrangement!

Glad to hear it. The more asylum seekers we can help, the better.

I want to be really clear that first, I'm not saying that pushback tactics are risk-free between Indonesia and Australia or that they haven't attracted criticism. Or second that there aren't risks in the much longer crossings to northern Australia.

This document from the parliamentary library includes explanations and sources for some of the potential issues, including, as I said, the size and nature of the boats in question that make them more vulnerable to damage or sinking if pushback tactics were employed.

You then have the separate issue that there are no international waters between the UK and France in the channel which also increases the challenge of acting unilaterally (and with a reasonable degree of either effectiveness or safety).

And on top of that a military-driven approach and an offshore processing system like Australia's is phenomenally expensive. I'm always curious at those who advocate an Australian-style system because we 'can't afford' to take genuine asylum seekers.

None of it is law yet. There is a long way to go.

Does anyone know why the government wants a cap of 20,000 asylum seekers a year, but 2 years ago introduced a scheme that would allow 2.9million people from HK to move to the UK?

Very good move, the British government deserve credit for that decision amongst those constantly deriding them.

The very same people that have no solutions of their own no less. Where millions of Afghans offered a life here apparently they don’t count, nor the 2.9 mil people from Hong Kong. Conveniently they overlook the nations generosity when it suits their political agenda.

Historically we must honour the safety and well being of the people from Hong Kong. Wiki can educate you on the matter.

I would say that is a reasonable decision. I am extremely glad they are shutting down the smugglers.

Me too.

"Mr Sunak and Ms Braverman have however insisted that new safe and legal routes will only be set up once Channel crossings have been reduced significantly."

Will happen at an indeterminate time.

Hhhhmmm wonder why they've not bothered to provide a timeline.

That doesn't really explain the sudden change of policy in 2021 though does it. Why wasn't Rishi up in arms about the 120,000 Hong Kongers who came here in the first 18months if he is so worried about migration?

This law is going through, and so will the plan for safe routes. It’s a balanced plan backed by most of the country.

Out of interest, why are you so keen to support the traffickers? Have you considered the ethics of your stance?

Look it up, easy to find.

Because they were born with the right to British citizenship and this was part of the handover treaty when we gave Hong Kong back to China.

They are entirely different from random refugees paddling over from France.

"This law is going through, "

No. It's not even written yet.

Nothing will happen this side of a GE.

www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/

Even with safe routes I suspected posters wouldn’t be happy.

I don’t know how anyone can prefer trafficking option.

Why did the government decide in 2021 that they could all move here, and not in any of the previous 24 years since British rule ended in HK?

Surely if they had always had that right it would not have needed a new visa scheme in 2021?

Yes, no-one ever proposed safe routes before. They came up with it all by themselves 🤡🤡🤡