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.

@Alstro 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.

So what? Why do we have to?

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.
Still talking rubbish, I see...
Le Pen received 13 millions votes out of 48 million registered voters, which is 26.5% not 40.
She also mainly campaigned on an anti-globalisation ticket, hoovering up votes from the far left in the second round.
There isn't 40% of French people rabidly against mass immigration; you don't know what you are talking about, so why be so rude?

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

Another question which is unlikely to be answered coherently ...

This is one of the most bizarre posts I've seen on here. I hardly know where to start. The accusation is rudeness is especially bizarre. Are you French or something? Are you taking this very personally?

I previously worked in immigration for a number of years. There's lots of ignorance on this thread about how it works and the reality of the situation.

No we shouldn't allow an offshore application in France - not on our own anyway. It would just encourage more numbers to come to France to make the application. And once refused they would still get in a boat anyway and get here.

The ideal solution is a joint approach with all of the EU with assessments being made by UNHCR and each country taking a quota based on population and land mass. And yes off shoring the migrants (not Rwanda but somewhere in the EU) while the consideration (which should be no more than 6 weeks) is made.

The reasons people don't want to stay in France are numerous. Firstly language but also the French police are pretty brutal (and racist) and it is no wonder migrants don't want to stay there. And France made it difficult to take back migrants before Brexit - yes it made it worse as they were pissed off with us but it wasn't easy before. I only saw handfuls of cases being accepted back to France - it could only be done if the asylum seeker had claimed asylum in French and had their biometrics taken. For obvious reasons migrants aren't keen to apply for asylum in France and France are t keen that they do either - they have significant numbers and don't want to add to them.

Yes it is the case that men claim to be kids to try and stay here (some men were clearly older than me and I was mid to late 20s). Yes it's also the case that there are dodgy lawyers - all of us knew the famous company that would get struck off but would then find another brother or uncle without a continual record who managed to get a licence to practise. When I went to court (as the HO rep) I sat at the back of the court and listened until the judge came in - heard lots of useful info that way including the dodgy lawyers telling their clients what to say/not say - something to the detriment of the asylum seeker themselves.

Yes most asylum cases approved. That's because we use the lower standard of proof in this country (reasonable likelihood) whereas the majority of other countries require proof to the civil standard (balance of probabilities).

The French do think we have ourselves to blame for being one of the top countries of choice. They see no point in working with us when we have a vibrant black market, and an over generous welfare system (their views not mine). They think if we sorted that out the pull factors would reduce and they may have a point.

In answer to a pp who asked how we work out who is a genuine asylum seeker - basically via interview. You have to show a well founded fear of persecution so for example just being a woman in Afghanistan wouldn't be enough to secure refugee status unless you were specifically targeted by the Taliban. However, by the same token we couldn't remove a woman back there so even if they were denied refugee status they would stay here under a form of humanitarian protection.

Yes, I am, and "a majority of French people will look at us with envy if we end mass immigration" is just complete rubbish... We know who to vote for if that's what we want, and we clearly didn't.

@AnneElliott thats interesting and is along same lines as what I thought on many points

On the interview how do people prove their well founded fear of persecution?

Do you call people to verify, see documents. Or is it just the verbal interview?

I agree with Anne below. It has to be a cohesive EU process which takes account of usable land mass and distributes refugees fairly. It would also need to consider how many more family members that refugee would want to bring in later. We also need to have lessons in English from practically day 1 to help them get job ready and to dispel ideas which some have that work is not an option. We should also treat our indigenous homeless people fairly as the current system breeds resentment.

That explains it. Fortunately you don't speak for French people and we have actual data on French attitudes to mass immigration.

Yes you look at documents @CloudyMcCloud if the individual has them but people don't always. But that's to be expected if people have fled their country. Plus if they are persecuted by the state then the state will not provide proof of that via documentation. In fact documents need to be treated with caution as there is no real way to verify them.

So yes you go on the interview. Firstly can the person give evidence they are from the country they claim (many Albanians claimed to be from Kosovo) and secondly does their claim coincide with the country information we have. But as there's a low standard of proof then if their story stacks up then they are granted. If not then they can appeal to the tribunal.

Agreed.

You'd have to be bonkers to believe life as a woman in the UK is anything like the middle east. 😂

And I'm yet to see British men recreating anything like what they call 'the rape game' in the ME, where large crowds of men surround lone women, tear their clothes off and grope/rape them for extended periods of time. All for daring to be out alone without a male chaperone.

Read Lara Logan's account of what happened to her in Egypt. Anyone who thinks that could happen in most UK town centres is delusional.

@AnneElliott "The ideal solution is a joint approach with all of the EU with assessments being made by UNHCR and each country taking a quota based on population and land mass. "

Well good luck with that one.

Why in the name of sweet reason should any sovereign country abide by the rulings of an unelected body?

Poland, Hungary and The Czech Republic have already stuck two fingers up the EU and refused to take any refugees.

Denmark has the tightest immigration laws in the EU.

Back to the drawing board..

This is extraordinarily naive. It's not 1960 anymore. English lessons have been tried you know, rather more than once. But more importantly tell me this, how are you going to re-educate the 22% of Afghan men who believe girls shouldn't be educated? Are you going to sternly wag your finger at them and/or patiently explain in painful detail how misinformed they are? How about a Libyan jihadist who's rather pissed off about you bombing his country? Are you going to dispel his naughty ideas with the magic of education too?

Why not try these tired old ideas out yet again in the safety of, say, Libya, where another few decades of failure at least won't get the rest of us killed.

It does sound like a low bar to me, and if you are the person responsible for deciding how hard it must be with just a verbal interview

I appreciate the detailed post as I wondered about the process, however on the central allocation I’m afraid I’m more with @Jennygosoftly

I see this thread has degenerated into anti-middle east ranting.

Every thread ends with a few people repeating over and over why they don't want any people from Afghanistan etc.

This is such an odd place. Half the threads seem to be on the impending downfall of the UK and the other half are suggesting we accept as many asylum seekers as possible.

I mean, can we even look after our existing population going forwards?

Says the person who didn't even have to degenerate into the shrieking racism stage. You just start right there and get no further. Tedious.

Oh, and Afghanistan's not in the middle east.

Anne's post is interesting but again: focusing on the wrong point. The game is not to "fairly" distribute all the asylum seekers who show up and prove their need by whatever standard, among all the European countries. The game is to extend charity to as many people we can afford to host, and no more. Not based on the numbers in need but on our capacity to support.

And yes, "how many we can afford to host" includes keeping in mind additions down the line from family reunification, etc. Keeping in mind that many refugee families require literally years of investment and support - I've done volunteering in this space and it's not just teaching English but in some cases teaching adults how to even read.

What's all this bo££ock$ about Afghanistan?

There is a 'Safe Route' from there to UK.

So presumably people will be 'processed' and vetted accordingly.

Personally, I can't see a problem.

Get a grip peeps, the threat isn't from Afghanistan.

Not sure why you say my post is focusing on the wrong point @Middlelanehogger ? I've attempted to provide some facts based on my experience of working in the system.

I've not given my view on the numbers point quite deliberately as I am still a civil servant and politically neutral. But the current position where each country does its own thing with no central co-ordination clearly isn't working.

@Pollyputhekettleon

Regarding Middle East/Afghanistan - I was simply referring to more than one post I read a bit further up - a post referring to 'ME', a different post to 'Afghan men'.

I'm not delivering or in need of a geography lecture, although don't let me stop you if it makes you happy.

Fair - I do agree that it should be a collaborative matter, I just get frustrated when the conversation is always positioned as "the European countries need to work together to divide up the refugees between them..."

When it could equally well be "the European countries need to work together to enforce the Italian sea border..." (which tbf your post possibly allows, appreciate you're trying to remain neutral and you're making an adjacent point)

@AnneElliott, welfare payments for asylum seekers is higher in France and Germany than here though, aren't they? It makes no sense for "the French" to think the UK is attractive to immigrants because of welfare. UK welfare is famously inadequate, including towards its own citizens.
@Pollyputhekettleon "attitudes to immigration from France" - you mean like the ones from this report? https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/46245/RSCAS20177_25.pdf

• Attitudes to immigration in France, as in most European countries, are highly stable and are in fact becoming slightly more favourable. France has relatively negative attitudes to immigration when compared with other western European countries.
  However, the French see immigration as a relatively unimportant issue affecting their country, considerably less so than other western European electorates. The recent uptick in perceived importance of immigration in almost all western European countries has been far less pronounced in France.*