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.

Oh yes, we must all pretend Brexit isn't having any negative impact on this issue, despite the Vote Leave campaign promises that Brexit would change border issues forever

How have you not noticed what’s going on?

The Med at least?

Brexit has ended UK influence upon Europe's approach to immigration generally. We used to be key players.

That voluntary loss of power is a massive, negative impact of Brexit on the UK border issues.

Anyone who doesn't realise the downside for the UK of being out of the room on this is either lacking understanding or, like the Vote Leave so-and-so's, aware but desperate to avoid discussing just how big a turd Brexit is.

Look at Germany this week re: saying AfD should be banned

On googling this is due to a surge in the polls

People are ignoring the blatant by now.

You really need to read more than just Brexit related issues

It’s an outcome due to dissatisfaction. It isn’t behind the increase of movement many other countries are dealing with.

Think about how that will manifest in other countries, it already is.

Here’s a starter

https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/07/13/support-for-the-hard-right-afd-is-surging-in-germany

You know, I've pointed out several times now that mass immigration has been a cross-party consensus in all western countries for decades now. To spell it out, Tories and Labour have both implemented mass immigration policies every single time either have been in office. Their motives to some extent differ, but their policy is the same, as demonstrated by the results. Yet here you are, trying to force it back into the petty parochial narrative of British party politics. Trying to make it about whatever loser happens to currently occupy the role of front man.

The elites react by saying everyday people are fascists
Who are the 'elites'? It is a word much used by populists who are actually members of the elite themselves.
I am certainly not in the elite (if only!)

Some voters support fascist policies, in pretty much every country.

'Everyday people' = most of the electorate, covering the whole authoritarian-liberal spectrum.

Some 'everyday people' are fascists, most are not.

@JanieEyre If there is a groundswell of opinion for or against any change in the law, it will find its way into a manifesto and if the electorate wants the change in question it will vote for the party concerned. If a government keeps laws in place against the wishes of the electorate, they will be voted out. That is how democracy works.

You seem to be confused. Yes we have a representative democracy, but not all policies desired but the electorate are enacted - for example, various studies have shown a majority of the electorate in favour of the death penalty - but this is not reflected in any party's manifesto. Personally this pleases me as I also oppose it, but it does prove that not every policy with majority support is enacted in our constitution.

The thing to look for is a surge in the polls. Dissatisfaction and tension will rise

Germany’s solution to deny preferred representation is a bad idea. Those strong feelings don’t just go away because the choice is taken away.

Every single one of those countries is free to change their laws at any time and end this if they really wanted to. They'll wait to do it until France and Germany turn national populist, which is a matter of time if current policies continue, thereby turning EU policy. Then they can agree amended international treaties without being punished by the imposition of international economic and financial sanctions, because the Americans aren't going to sanction France and Germany for such disobedience.

The arrival of these migrants is not some passive act of God. Each of those countries is making deliberate policy decisions to continue to allow it.

Tbf Americans have their own riding issues with mass movement and protests

Rising

Agreed - both main parties have no serious policy to actually "stop the boats" - it's just a totem for them to argue pointlessly about whilst not actually doing anything.

There is a way to stop them…

Aus has done it with another location, permissible in international law

Yes there are also lots of ways to minimize migration even within the current laws if a government wanted to do it. Hungary did it during the 2015 migrant crisis, for example. Australia is another, although outside the EU and not reliant on it, so not a straight comparator.

In the end, these are people, by pure chance born into shitty situations who are trying to make a decent life for themselves and their families. How can they "buy a ticket" and get correct passports and visas from a refugee camp when all they have ever owned has been bombed or taken?

It's true they're people, but beyond that it's best not to confuse hearsay with evidence - something made easier if you've witnessed asylum charities coaching hopefuls in "what to say"

I'd ask how it's possible to identify who anyone really is when then turn up with no documentation and a heartrending story, but it's been asked so often before and there's never a coherent reply

To be clear I doubt anyone would object to helping genuine refugees, hence the welcome for Ukrainians. What we would like to be assured of however is that a system exists for telling t'other from which

There are many ways - but Aus doesn't have a tunnel and a gazillion ferries carrying trade with Europe. We are an island but we cannot really operate like Aus. By which I mean, if we, for example, upset the French too much, they will disrupt our European trade and travel, so any solution has to include them as a minimum. Aus didn't have that issue.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

Yes, I spent some time as a legal aid case when I was young and green helping a young man from "Western Sahara", who turned out to be an older man with a criminal record from Morocco. Still very hard to get him to go back to Morocco when he had destroyed his documents, so he is probably still in jail here

The same method as Aus doesn’t need to ‘upset the French’ and it also doesn’t have anything to do with ferries or the tunnel

It’s about using another location to provide asylum

OP, you clealry don't understand what 'safe routes' means. 'Safe routes' simply means a way to get here that isn't illegal. Apart from special arrangements for countries like Ukraine, there are no ways to the UK that aren't illegal. You can see Suella Braveman getting tied up in knots over this on this link. MP questions Braverman on safe and legal routes to the UK - BBC News

The lack of safe routes has fuelled the small boats crisis. There is a gap in the 'market' that criminal gangs have filled. We also need to speed up asylum claims. Successive governments have cut asylum processing so that it can take years to assess a claim. It should take a few months, weeks in simple cases. If people who did not have refugee status knew they would be removed swiftly, there would a much less incentive to come here.

Currently, our government is using migrants as scapegoats for all their failed policies. The NHS is underfunded? Blame the migrants. We don't build enough affordable homes? Blame the migrants. Our education system underperforms and is underfunded? Blame the migrants.

It would make a lot of sense to allow asylum claimants to work so they can contribute via taxes while they are here, and support themsleves.

Maybe. But Australia also didn't have a neighbouring country which voted 40% for a Le Pen in its last presidential election. If Britain ended its mass immigration policy, a majority of French people would react with a combination of envy and fury at their own politician's refusal to follow suit.

We also need to speed up asylum claims. Successive governments have cut asylum processing so that it can take years to assess a claim. It should take a few months, weeks in simple cases. If people who did not have refugee status knew they would be removed swiftly, there would a much less incentive to come here.

If it is an overall easier process to come here numbers would go up not down.

How many would it take do you think to stop boats arriving outside safe routes?

@Technonan

So the "safe route" would involve applying from another country? Or just coming with the intention of claiming asylum would automatically be legal?.

How do you propose removing people who have destroyed all their documents and whose home country obfuscates when you try to send them back?

“I agree. Sadly we can't fix the whole world.”

And UK are not doing so. The U.K. takes relatively few global refugees, so this kind of comment you frequently see on this topic is not rooted in reality.

———————

“Are there many refugees and asylum seekers in the UK?

The vast majority of refugees globally – four out of every five – stay in their region of displacement, and consequently are hosted by developing countries. Turkey now hosts the highest number of refugees with 3.7 million, followed by Colombia with 1.7 million.

Worldwide, roughly 85% of all refugees live in developing regions , not in wealthy industrialised countries, and 73% of refugees displaced abroad live in countries neighbouring their countries of origin.

Does the UK resettle a large number of refugees through its settlement schemes?
No, Resettlement is down. In the year ending September 2022, 15,987 were granted asylum, humanitarian protection or other forms of leave, only 1,391 were resettled through various resettlement schemes. That means only 8.7% came through resettlement.

Which countries in Europe have the most people seeking asylum

In the year ending September 2021, Germany received the highest number of asylum applicants (127,730) in the EU+, followed by France (96,510) “

@Technonan "It would make a lot of sense to allow asylum claimants to work so they can contribute via taxes while they are here, and support themsleves."

So Fred Blogs, who has been removed from an unseaworthy dingy in the English Channel near Dover, brought ashore and is now living in a seafront hotel in Skegness needs to be put to work?
OK, so he needs to be assessed by someone to see if -

1. He is medically fit for work
2. He speaks good enough English
3. He has any skills
4. There are any jobs available in the area. (he can't drive so any job needs be be within a reasonable are accessible by public transport)

So he spends 6 months washing pots in a hotel in Skeggy and then the result of his asylum application comes through and he's found not to be eligible because he's a criminal wanted in a EU country. The Home Office want to deport him.

His lawyer wants to put in an appeal to let him stay in the country because he's 'turned his life around' and has contributed to the Treasury but while this is being actioned Fred Blogs has disappeared into the Black Economy.