To want to know why the numbers crossing in small boats has increased?

[Neededanewuserhandle]

I have seen it argued that it's Brexit since we left the Dublin agreement that allowed us to return people to the EU. But we hardly ever used that - in fact the figures suggest we ended up with more people returned to us than we sent "back" to EU countries.

Of course it's hard to know the truth, but I find it hard to imagine that the people in the boats and the smuggling gangs have researched the provisions of the Dublin agreement.

The majority of boat arrivals are apparently from Albania - we have a formal agreement for returning them but it doesn't seem to be deterring people from coming.

AIBU to wish there was a way for ordinary people to get hold of the truth rather than partisan opinions from all sides dressed up as pretend facts?

Well, if its nothing to do with Brexit, the timing of Brexit and vastly increased crossing is rather coincidental.

I think its a combination of factors, the biggest one being that since we left the EU, the French in particular have no real reason to stop them, we have no influence and we have left the real time agreements on Policing and criminal data sharing too, Brexit was always a Fuck Off to the EU after all.

Its funny too that Rwanda is supposed to be a deterrent (by sending just a few 100 there, out of 10s of 1000s) yet the Dublin agreement never was.....

X Ch migration is also a tool the Govt uses to beat Labour with, so in a way, higher numbers suits them.

Anyway, majority of people crossing channel are not from Albania, never was, max around 15 to 20%, far less now (Migration Observatory 2022) due to returns agreement.

It's relevant, was answered and I didn't see a more recent one. Is that OK thread police?

Thread police second point

Another reason is the news story I shared on my post is from the last few days so very relevant.

What can you tell us about when asylum seekers were given the right to work?
How long do they have to be waiting for their claim to be assessed before they can work?
What kind of work are they allowed to do?

Op it’s increasing generally. Look at trends across Med and Mexico to US

Policies will impact numbers but overall world events are increasing people movement and will continue with climate on top

@cakeorwine

This story about the hone office agreeibg the right to work was published this week.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/19/channel-migrants-given-right-to-work/

So why are you pointing fingers at people coming over in treacherous conditions and filling these roles, rather than at the government that has allowed these desperate staff shortages to occur? Why do you think Rishi is letting them work - because health and social care are totally and completely fucked otherwise.
Don't let this divisive xenophobic shit cloud over the real issues - 14 years of conservative rule. Say one thing, do another, hope nobody notices.

So you haven't answered the questions.

This is from 2022

Asylum seekers: the permission to work policy - House of Commons Library (parliament.uk)

People who have claimed asylum in the UK can apply for permission to work if they have been waiting 12 months for a decision, and they are not considered responsible for the delay.
If permission is granted, the person will be allowed to take up jobs on the shortage occupation list only. This mostly restricts them to highly skilled jobs that require formal qualifications (although social care work is now on the list). The courts have emphasised that there is, in principle, discretion to allow other types of work.
The Home Office is unable to provide data on the number of asylum seekers granted permission to work.

Can you tell me if that information has changed?

So when you say "Given the right to work", when do you think they were given this right?

And how does this link to the statement here:

"As a general rule, asylum seekers are not allowed to work in the UK. Some people think work should be allowed, at least after a period of (for example) six months waiting for a decision on an asylum claim."

Has this changed?

There may well be an increase in asylum seekers who are working because the backlog has been massive and many people have been on the waiting list for over 12 months.

So to summarise:

1)People have a right to work if they have been on the list waiting for their case to be heard.

2. This is not a new right. It has been around for ages.

3. They are only allowed to work in occupations on the shortage list.

Did you know that @AliceA2021

Why are Albanians risking their lives in small boats? What kind of war and persecution are young Albanian men fleeing from?

Numbers from Albania are massively down.
So not really relevant anymore.

Illegal migration has always been a dead cat argument to distract from far larger legal migration from outside the EU that the government always had control over but never wanted to do anything about. They know they have trashed technical education and training and have allowed businesses to import ready trained staff from abroad instead of investing in staff training and development for years. Not coincidentally because the profits their buddies can make would be impacted by them having to actually invest in training and development. Now we have stopped transient workers from the EU coming in to work in agriculture and sent back all the young people who were coming here from Europe to work mostly short term, we have a massive skills shortage and have to get people to come here from so far away they will not come unless they can bring their families. The government has no intention of doing anything about legal migration and no intention of spending the money wasted on Rwanda on speeding up the asylum system, and stopping criminal gangs using people as slaves in the UK. Because its easier to pander to Daily Mail and Telegraph readers by blaming other people for their own incompetence and lack of ideas. The people on small boats come here partly because the criminal gangs know that they can just make these people disappear into the Black economy, working on Cannabis farms, money laundering and prostitution and they are likely to get away with it. People who are trafficked do not suddenly find thousands of ££ they have to pay it back by working illegally for criminal gangs. Asylum seekers should be allowed or even compelled to work in shortage occupations. They aren't taking other peoples jobs, because the people who are from here aren't doing them. Keeping them in legal work hopefully keeps track of them and out of the clutches of the criminals who brought them here. That in itself would make trafficking less likely.

Disagree that it's not a problem. People dying on these trips in overcrowded tiny boats is a problem. I'm concerned about conditions here in UK. Housing lists, benefits clamp down, poverty, crime, drug abuse, homelessness, mental health crisis and drug crime is at epidemic levels in UK cities. I wonder why anyone thinks this country can accommodate any migrant who cannot fund their own migration without relying on the state. A pp mentioned annual migration filling Old Trafford, as if that's managable!!!! Where do these people go? Who funds their housing, health care, food bills, schooling? It's just not practical. When you see the poverty already here it doesn't inspire encouraging more. Let's get an international operation to monitor who buys, sells these boats, who arranges initial transport from countries like Albania.

"Where do these people go?"

Most stay in neighbouring countries.

The Islamic Republic of Iran and Türkiye each hosted 3.4 million refugees, the largest populations worldwide.
Germany was third with 2.5 million, followed by Colombia with slightly less than 2.5 million, including other people in need of international protection.
Pakistan hosted 2.1 million refugees.
Islamic Republic of Iran 3.4 million
Türkiye 3.4 million
Germany 2.5 million
Colombia 2.5 million
Pakistan 2.1 million

So where should "they" go when they are fleeing war and repression?

Where would you go?

Agree on more police cooperation but who killed that stone dead? I find it incredible that no one (appears) to look at who is importing these boats & engines into Europe, where are they being sold and to whom?

As for the rest of your post, the amounts spent on x ch migrants is peanuts in terms of addressing Housing, crime, homelessness, NHS, Social care etc etc.

Easy thing to blame migrants for our woes instead of 14 years of Austerity plus the 750k legal migrants coming here are putting real strains on the UKs crumbling infrastructure.

When I said it's not a problem, I meant its not a problem the government is motivated to solve. TBH I thought that would obvious.
"Housing lists, benefits clamp down, poverty, crime, drug abuse, homelessness, mental health crisis and drug crime is at epidemic levels in UK cities", absolutely none of which small boats migration is responsible for.
I do agree that more needs to done to prevent human trafficking, but expecting people not to come because there is poverty here isn't the solution, because relatively speaking, there absolutely isn't poverty here. Rather than pointing fingers at refugees, you should be asking why the government isn't doing about it.

Oliotya, I don't 'expect people not come because there is poverty here' but I do believe that people who cannot support themselves should not be encouraged to come here at the moment as it's not practical re issues I mentioned. The areas people are housed into are rife with social problems as it is, adding to it is not practical or responsible. Perhaps governments can work more efficiently on foreign policy to encourage and sanction countries who abuse human rights to stop, thus making the environments safer and healthier for people in it.

This explains it pretty well.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UpZAS0yqkJM

Just from your op the Albania numbers are down hugely because people get sent back and traffickers won’t bother to sell the U.K. as an option anymore

It’s the most effective and then a sliding scale to how easy it is. The easier it is for traffickers the higher numbers, at about £100k per boat it’s big business.

You can stop traffickers completely but Albania is possible as its status is different.

Although this is an old thread, just realised

My point was this news encourages people to make the journey. This story was published 19th January 2024

"Channel migrants have been quietly given the right to work in sectors including care, construction and agriculture and can still retain access to state-subsidised bed and board under a Home Office scheme.
Nearly 16,000 asylum seekers, including those who crossed the Channel in small boats, have been allowed to work in a single year, according to data obtained under Freedom of Information (FOI) laws.
They have been allowed to work in occupations in which there are recognised staff shortages, and are paid 80 per cent of the going pay rate.
The migrants forgo their £49.13 a week state subsistence allowance if they earn more than that, but can negotiate with the Home Office to remain in asylum accommodation as long as they pay a contribution towards the cost.
On Friday night, Nigel Farage, the former Ukip leader, and Tory MPs critcised the scheme, warning that it could act as a “pull factor” to encourage migrants to come to the UK illegally.
Mr Farage told The Telegraph: “This is a disaster. Once the traffickers can advertise jobs and free board, even more will want to come. Rwanda is completely irrelevant in comparison to this.”

Well yes, but they aren't are they? Worry more about why that is, than the relatively insignificant number of small boats refugees.

No point in Rwanda, government should attempt to get some of the wasted money back

If you want numbers to fall deterrent is pretty much it - if people can think of another then fine

If not numbers will keep going up. Also fine if people want that

Not saying either way has to be wanted, but the basic issue is easier - higher numbers, harder / deterrent - fewer