To think people who want "safe routes to migration" into the UK are hopelessly naive

[ForestGoblin]

We could spend every penny of public money on bringing refugees to the UK in comfy and safe boats and planes. We could make it mandatory for every home to provide accommodation and food. We could ban healthcare for anyone except refugees.

And there would still be thousands and thousands of boat crossings every year and millions more people languishing in bad situations and trying to figure out how to get here or elsewhere in northern Europe.

It's a crap situation. Life is bad. I feel dreadful for them.

But "safe routes" is a load of glib nonsense that can't work.

we should welcome any who want to not live under the Taliban and can accept western culture

How many is that?

@Cyclebabble can you link to the report from The Pugh Foundation - can't find them on line

Not sure what 'Western culture' is either - but most of the UASC I work with blend in well

@CloudyMcCloud

what a stupid question.

Why?

It’s kind of funny that a basic question makes you react like that

Your plan a bit unrealistic don’t you think?

We should have taken up the French offer of a processing centre on French soil with some funding thrown in too. Why we didn't is a mystery to me. Then we should have staffed it properly to hit key KPIs on processing, acceptance and where required repatriation.

We take in far fewer refugees than our neighbouring wealthy nations. We are not more "inundated" than them and we are hardly a soft touch or our numbers would be far higher.

At the moment we have a system in disarray that is costing us billions and we are refusing any international support. I can't really see how anything could make it worse. The current system just ensures huge amounts of cash gets siphoned to Tory donors whilst maintaining a crisis that can be used as a political campaign point.

I worked in this area over 20 years ago. The wait for a decision, and then an appeal to be heard was already 18 months and counting. Generally everyone appealed, even if their case was weak (e.g. a gay male Brazilian who claimed he was being persecuted for his sexuality). These were highly motivated individuals who would always take another opportunity if offered, and that's how they viewed the appeal process.

In the intervening two decades, absolutely no progress has been made on speeding up our processing of applications when it was already obvious that this was necessary. Before we consider any other factors we must sort this out. It shouldn't take more than a matter of weeks to process an asylum application and many of the appeals are purely opportunistic and should be fast-tracked.

Once we've done that, we can start pointing fingers.

How many would we have had to say yes to in France to ensure no boats arrived via smugglers?

@stuckdownahole we have kids turning 18 who have been waiting for a decision for over 5 years - it's disgraceful

and yes THIS government turned down the French offer of a processing centre - they don't care about 'stopping the boats'

for those thinking we are the most generous country we are actually on par with other countries - some are better - allowing people to work if their claim is not settled after 6 months (which shows how quickly they aim to process people!!)

Factbox: Benefits offered to asylum seekers in European countries | Reuters

How many would we have had to say yes to in France to ensure no boats arrived via smugglers?

probably the same as we have now

Really? So we hit say 45k and no one else wants to come. Why would that be the case?

Here's a question for you instead - why would it be worse than what we have at the moment? No alternatives to crossings and £1.6 billion lame duck housing barges not fit for human habitation docked on a Tory donor's dock for £5k a day.

I reckon it doesn't take a genius to figure out that plenty people will take the option of having their claims processed without crossing one of the world's busiest shipping lanes in a leaking overcrowded dingy for thousands of euros.

Because you can’t say yes to everyone who wants to apply, unless you can give a number

Which means those who get a no will still pay a smuggler to come and international law means you’ll have to process their claim at the U.K. border.

You’ll get increased applications in France plus boat arrivals.

So if you can’t give a number because it sounds too high then yes a genius might work out you haven’t solved the problem

We grant most cases of asylum because the civil service and government are diabolical and half the time their lawyers don't even turn up to the hearings! Therefore they are automatically granted asylum!

It will reduce migrant crossing by 200,000 a year.

Where is this from? Can you link?

We’re not at 200k a year - is it a negative and people leave by boat instead?

Sorry I thought we were just making shit up after your last post.

Oh dear you’ve exploded because a numbers question isn’t answerable

It’s not just you who gets all enraged. Your plan has insurmountable problems, that’s your issue though

It won’t work

@Eleganz

"It will reduce migrant crossing by 200,000 a year"

+++

How did y get that figure of 200k a year?

++++

Approximately 45,000 people came in on small boats in the calendar year 2022 of which almost half of small boat arrivals were from 2 nationalities - Albanians (28%) and Afghans (20%).

Albania is not an unsafe country.

You keep saying it won't work, but that is just an unsubstantiated opinion and it has no more credibility than any prediction I could give on numbers reduced by any other strategy.

We are in no position to be refusing offers of assistance from other countries in this matter. It seems quite churlish to be doing so and even more churlish to be inventing reasons why trying different approaches won't work when people are dying in the channel on a regular basis.

It is very easy to be a naysayer, you are offering this debate nothing of value though.

I was just making it up after others decided to make up a load of reasons why it wouldn't be effective. Seems like people like to make up their own stuff but don't like it when others do the same.

Oh by the way, that number you are quoting is only those that arrived. About 50% of the crossing are intercepted.

If you cap the number then you can’t say yes to everyone. I assume you don’t want unlimited - hard to know as a simple question isn’t answered but anyway

People can still can arrive at the UK border and expect to be processed under international law

Can you say why they wouldn’t still pay to do that?

Your responses are angry because you know there’s a flaw

It’s also why you won’t give a number

Don’t get cross at a question, it’s pointless.

As for ‘naysayer’ I’d say look to countries who have got boats to zero and see what they did. Have a google, it’s all available

Finally a sensible thread about the utter mess we are in.