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.

I think that was aimed at me polly and says nothing about anyone being Tory. Blossom was saying I'm anti current Government position on immigration, which is absolutely correct

Just in case someone on this thread has said that there is not enough housing in the UK, I would like to take this opportunity to pont out the government's own estimate is that there are 700,000 empty homes, some suggest that this under counts and the true figure is over a million.

Now you've done it 😂

Immigration has been part of the human condition for as long as we have existed. People were originally nomadic before the concept of nation states and property owning existed. So I don’t especially get wound up by something which is currently a political distraction tool.

Yes there needs to be some kind of controls over immigration, but the government have chosen to remove funding from the immigration service meaning it’s nearly impossible to migrate here safely. It refuses to engage with the EU over this issue. There’s so much more that we could do as a nation to improve the immigration system. Especially as we need these people to either be approved and start to work and contribute or be declined.

The hotter parts of the world will practically be on fire soon and there will be a need for mass immigration. If by accident of birth you were living in a nation where it was becoming untenable to live in wouldn’t you do something about it? Or would you stay and die saying ‘we can’t go to the UK, it isn’t fair on them’? We do have a moral obligation to help out when climate change really starts to bite, as an industrialised nation who forged the industrial revolution we have had a large part in the creation of this situation.

My final thought is why should France be the nation that takes all of these refugees? Other nations take far more than we do, so why are we complaining about taking our fair share because of a 24 mile stretch of water?

We should be approaching this as a multi national issue with each rich, Western temperate nation taking their fair share. Instead it’s being used as a dog whistle divisive political tactic by our current government. We need to grow up.

I think people are used to the auto post by now

It’s the sound of a lost argument. Don’t worry about it

@bozzabollix If by accident of birth you were living in a nation where it was becoming untenable to live in wouldn’t you do something about it?

Migration has been part of human activity since before humans were even a species, yes.

There's also usually an expectation that if you enter another "tribe's" territory they aren't going to peacefully hand it over to you and there is going to be some kind of conflict.

This becomes more true in times of fewer resources, not less.

I think this is the main issue that people have in the majority of these migrants appear to be fighting age men. You'd think the majority fleeing persecution would be women and children?

Yes migration has always been part of human history, often accompanied by genocide, war, rape, and slavery. Obviously enough people preventing the migration of other groups into their territories has equally always been part of human history. Yet here you are getting wound up about the latter but not the former.

Could it be because you're attempting to frame historically unprecedented levels of mass immigration into western countries since WW2 as an act of God, an inevitable and perfectly natural phenomenon, rather than a deliberate recorded policy choice made repeatedly by specific people in power? Of course God here can be replaced seamlessly for a 21st century audience by Mother Nature, in the form of climate change. Now who does that little narrative serve? It couldn't possibly be the western governments which have implemented mass immigration for decades against the wishes of majorities of their populations could it?

Intended to tag @bozzabollix

There have been 16% fewer small boat crossings this year than last. I think it is ridiculous to say that with proper policies in place for legal migration that there would still be "thousands and thousands" of boat crossings each year. There would be a huge reduction. And FYI I live in dover and my main concern is for the safety of those in the boats and those who go out daily to escort them to safety.

If everyone moves out of sub Saharan Africa then all we are doing is making the rest of the world overcrowded and unworkable. There won't be the infrastructure, food, housing, or anything else to maintain life. Unless a mass evacuation is in place and people instructed on where they go then the distribution won't be evened out.
The UK isn't as big as France , we are more overcrowded than a lot of European countries. Look it up if you don't believe me. A lot of the problems were exacerbated by Angela Merkel and her refugees welcome invitation,she had no clue what she was thinking.In her naivete she thought no one, absolutely no one would lie, or take advantage of a good thing. I mean, where did she put her brain?
And yes, people have always moved, but that has no bearing on today, we are in a very different situation now. We are overcrowded, our services are crumbling/non existent, putting thousands more on this island helps no one. Least of all those who come here.

bozzabollix
My final thought is why should France be the nation that takes all of these refugees?

France has 3.6 million second homes - so if we consider jgw1's argument,
then France should take four times as many refugees as we do.

However many empty homes there are, it doesn't matter. I do have some experience in working next to a colleague whose job [ in local government] was to identify empty homes, contact the owners, try to get them upgraded and fit for letting. The L/A would lease the homes for a period. Firstly getting into contact with the owners = huge amount of work, getting them on board =ditto, work often a complete nightmare, homes left empty swiftly deteriorate and some had been empty for years. And some of these homes, it's clear why they have been abandoned.
Unless ,of course, you think the government is going to approve some emergency legislation to allow sequestering of property, no chance. Do, I think homes should be left empty? No, of course not, but it's not the solution.

It’s the sound of something that wasn’t even said, let alone intended.

Anyone can claim asylum on arrival at a port of entry. Asylum can also be claimed "in country". A lot of the time people travel on falsely obtained passports and visas or they can travel on their own documentation which would then raise the issue of whether or not they were experiencing persecution because they were able to obtain a passport and depart the country they are claiming to be fleeing.
I've worked in this area for 23 years and have seen so many initiatives and new ways of working.

That could happen except there are about 12 grounds for appeal and these illegals can work through each one after the other, then when they exhaust those they get put on a plane for deportation but the nutty passengers stand up til they get taken back off the plane, then they get a cat as a pet and claim they have a family life meanwhile about ten years of tax payer funded 4hotels has been expended. Usually all this money is being spent on shady types that have destroyed any ID papers to hide their true origins and/or criminal past and claim to be 15 when in fact they are in their 20's. Cut all the above c*p and they could be processed quickly and fairly but too many lawyers making too much money from out dated rules/laws.

Hotels and £8 per week because they aren't allowed to work and we don't have enough social housing. It's hardly the life of luxury.

Either let them work and support themselves through this, or process them quickly through their 12 appeals. The government need to fund the process, not performative "deterrents"

Frankly I'm more bothered about the amount of money this government has spent on lawyers to try to degend their illegal behaviours, and the amount they are spaffing up the wall on their performative "deterrents"

Home Office has spent £1.3m on legal costs relating to the Rwanda plan
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rwanda-plan-home-office-cost-court-b2362362.html

And that article says they've spent £140 million with the Rwandan government to allow them to process cases.

They've spent £1.6 BILLION with the barge operators
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/barge-australia-asylum-contract-travel-b2354578.html

And as far as I know, this covers 500 asylum seekers on the Bibby Stockholm and a planned max 5000 to go to Rwanda

It's an obscene amount of tax payers money. If Braverman spent that much on civil servants to process the backlog and charter flights to return people quickly, it would be a much more efficient use of our money.

It's hardly the life of luxury.

It isn't luxury but it is far superior to anything they could expect at home. It offers a level of safety and financial security many people in the world could only dream of.

It's an obscene amount of tax payers money. If Braverman spent that much on civil servants to process the backlog and charter flights to return people quickly, it would be a much more efficient use of our money.
Totally agree.

But it's actually hilarious that you interpret it as wishing for you to be raped.

Yes, I’ve noticed that too.
First the claim that women in the UK were already treated abysmally and that the male refugees’ attitudes towards them didn’t really make much difference, but then it suddenly turns out that Afghan women might have it worse than the women here after all.

If there was no ‘backlog’ and it was speedy how many would apply, how many would you say yes to and what would you do when boats arrived with those who got a no?

International law would still apply and you’d have to process their asylum claims.

You’d have higher numbers being processed, a few return flights as nearly everyone is a yes, a capped figure and the nos still coming.

You’d have ‘safe routes’ and asylum seekers at the border. You’d end up with both.

stuckdownahole
As someone who has worked on immigration, please can you tell how the process works, how do the home office decide if they are genuine asylum seekers or economic migrants, when most have no identity or paperwork to prove who they are, is there reason for seeking asylum true etc, how is it decided

France's number of empty houses holds no bearing on a person's right to seek asylum in the UK