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.

Women get pregnant. No contraception is 100% and I'm guessing access to abortion is even more difficult in a civil war or refugee camp.

Even so, are you really saying people living in politically unstable countries shouldn't have children? That's pretty extreme.

Absolute woman blaming twaddle.

Worked fine for years until the Tories took the route away in order to engineer the so called small boats crisis and get voters all angry. Same old create a problem they can promise to fix tactic. And people fall for it

Do you think they are engineering the Med drownings too and the protests in NY?

Maybe read up on world events a bit more.

Another Little Englander who can't cope with anything beyond Tory vs Labour. There's a whole world beyond your borders you know.

It’s incredible that people buy the they engineered it line.

At this point it must take complete disinterest in what’s happening globally.

Around 40 people from Afghanistan were granted asylum in the last 2 years, via the official route.

So whether you like it or not, the Tories have removed legal routes and took away the UK's influence in Europe.
There are people who supported our troops in that war and one where Wallace apparently broke down so "upset" was he that afghan's were abandoned just 2 years ago.

Perhaps "engineered" is giving them too much "credit" but there is no doubt that focusing on cross ch migration and blaming the French, is a very useful distraction - more people, seeking asylum, come to the UK by conventional means, yet where is the outrage here about that..... ???

I wonder why there’s increased drownings in the Med, rise in far right in Germany, changing political landscape in EU, protests in NY, fires in Maui

Nothing…

Some take little interest. It’s only going in one direction so it will get harder to ignore

'more people, seeking asylum, come to the UK by conventional means, yet where is the outrage here about that..... ???'

Are you serious or is this sarcasm? I literally can't tell. You seem to be blissfully unaware of both events outside the UK as well as public opinion within the UK, including right here on this thread. This Tory obsession is making people behave very strangely.

Well, the Tories are in Govt... & have been for the past decade plus... i'm at a loss as to why being critical of the Tories means i don't know anything about "world events" i have to assume you think only Tories supporters have such insight & knowledge, very strange indeed.

Do you approve of our lack of processing & support for Afghans (& their familes) who helped us during a decade of war? or perhaps even worse, the lack of support for afghan women (or Iranian women come to that) or that we have deported Yezidi rape victims, refused asylum to those same women in camps in Syria, that an Afghan General who supported the British, spent 2 years in a Pakistan camp, got no where with his visa application and eventually settled in the USA.........you are all ok with that... Good for you.

Can you point to the MN thread on migrants claiming asylum coming into the UK via airports/ferry ports? far more than cross the channel....

This with bells on

Sorry. It was just too tempting.

Given that there are less than 30 countries that the UK has not invaded in part or taken over, limiting migrants to those countries that the UK does not have any links to, leaves Mongolia and a handful of others.

I thought the NatCs who don't like immigration also think that people should be having more babies, and that women shouldn't be educated too much so they are more likely to look after said babies. It is all so confusing.

I thought the whole point of Brexit was to take back control of our borders, why hasn't that happened yet?

Public opinion like this?

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2023/08/08/public-lack-confidence-conservatives-stop-boats

Would any posters on here like to confirm that they do not think the UK should take economic migrants?

I note in passing that one thing Rishi Sunak and I have in common is that we have both been economic migrants.

Unless posters think they can control climate and the subsequent global response they’re going to be a shrinking view

Majority yanbu on this thread. It’ll keep going up

@Alexandra2001 Your narrow perspective is just so foreign to me that I have no idea what to do with it.

But on Afghanistan specifically, I think Britain should first democratically pass any laws necessary reintroducing the death penalty, including retrospectively, for war crimes and treason - anyone trying to censor what I'm about to say can read that a few times first. Then everyone in the British government who has been responsible for the deliberate destabilization of large parts of the world under American orders since WW2 should be convicted and hung for war crimes and treason. The former is for what they've done abroad. The latter is for bringing the consequences of those crimes back to the UK in the form of suicidal immigration policies - to take just one example, enabling the families of their pet jihadists access to blow up innocent children at music concerts. And to get past your seriously overactive party political filter, there would be equal numbers of Labour and Tory politicians swinging in that scenario.

Border Force on Red Alert as multiple small boats crossing the channel. Here we go again.

What's your answer to the huge swathes of people who live in areas that will become inhospitable?

It sounds like you are saying no to migration/asylum seekers and so I'm assuming that means you would let them die/make it someone else's problem?

Let's not beat about the bush here, increasing numbers will be forced to migrate so the only options are those two, if we are already "full"

😮
Quite a niche view there

@jgw1 In only 5 posts you've managed to cover:

1. Attempts to manipulate with guilt for British colonialism
2. Nazi shrieking
3. Brexit shrieking
4. Tories bad!
5. Rishi hypocrite!

I think I have a full bingo card now. And of course you covered the empty homes numbers game yesterday. That's exceptional efficiency in message delivery. Have you ever considered mixing it up a little for variety though? People get bored.

That's one word for it.

This thread is about safe routes and whether they’d work as a solution. They won’t.

People can decide they don’t mind the high numbers arriving, but it won’t be orderly or controlled.

Some countries will protect as Aus do and not accept the high numbers and use policies which generally when put in place no politician will touch. Even the opposition who inherit them and likely opposed it at the time wouldn’t overturn policies that work.

It’s up to others how they want it to go, if given a vote on it. But ‘safe routes’ will not do much at all. You’ll just get both the routes and boats.

Oh dear, Adam thinks one of my views place me in a social minority. I shall need to take a break to find my smelling salts.