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 don't know why you think simply repeatedly calling me names and shrieking about lizards is going to achieve anything for you. By all means carry on though. All you do is expose your own inability and unwillingness to debate.

I'd just prefer if you stop with your doomsday stuff and constant questions and start at least engaging with some ideas? (other than shouting Australia)

What Australia did was inhumane, a refugee set himself fire100s more sexually abused, MH issues rife, even if we had a PNG nearby, its not a policy i would support.... But if you re just looking to "Stop the Boats" use a machine gun patrol boats to sink them..... that'll do it.

Climate change is the biggest threat we, as a species, is huge, migration is one aspect but not the only only one, being able to feed and water ourselves will become increasingly difficult.

Its MN, we are all random's, nothing to get riled over & if upsetting someone excites you... well that says quite a bit about you.

Climate is ‘doomsday’ like I say good luck. If that’s your take you’ll be more alone with it.

Aus is my answer 🤷‍♂️ You keep asking for some reason. I’d love it if you stopped but if you ask again it’ll be the same reply.

If you don’t want that safe routes won’t do much and you’ll get boats and safe routes.

But ‘safe routes’ will not do much at all. You’ll just get both the routes and boats

We would however be able to be sure that people that really do need asylum get it, be able to apply nearer their home countries and avoid being trafficked, sexually abused and killed.

We don't know what would happen, its just your opinion, many others believe "Safe routes" would help.... so why not try it? nothing else is working, we are just doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

There is no evidence whatsoever, that deporting 1000 refugees to Rwanda would deter 20,000 plus crossing per year or the many more than come via plane and ferry.

It’s not just my opinion it’s also the opinion of Aus Labor who probably opposed the policies but know safe routes, no Nauru and catch smugglers would take them back to 000s of arrivals

So even though they were likely against it initially and have received similar criticisms from outside agencies they know it would be hugely unpopular to go back to boats

It's quite hard to debate with someone who thinks that hanging politicians is a reasonable response to their lawfully executing UK foreign policy, that was voted on democratically at the time.

Anyway, you go first. What would you like to debate?

So where would you build the Australian style detention/processing centres ?

Zero is possible, so thise displaced by climate change can die or be someone else's problem.

But you'd accept 60,000 asylum seekers. That's only slightly less than last year's 75,000.

How do those 60,000 people apply for asylum without travelling to the UK first?

But that’s like saying why not put a bandage on to see if it helps with flu. They’re 2 separate issues and the fact remains, regardless of how genuine their application, we simply do not have the money or resources to take care of them.

Zero by boat - see Aus

Also see Aus for migration numbers which are not zero - via programmes or visas

Systems can be set up for application and capped

Now your turn what’s your number if not 60k asylum seekers?

Programmes/visas are examples of safe routes.

I don't have a figure in mind as like I said, other issues are more of a priority for me. I'd be relaxed if the current migration doubled. Can't anticipate it going up more than that short term, if it does then there's a huge humanitarian crisis and all hands on deck to help.

Equally I was totally relaxed about Eastern Europeans coming when those countries joined the EU in the 90s. And I think those people have really benefited the UK.

Programmes/visas are examples of safe routes.

Yes they are and they work because the other policies are in place

Otherwise you get safe routes and boats

Whatever number you say you know people will still want to come, can’t and will die right?

I don’t get the number at which you feel this is no longer an issue

As for lower priority that’s up to you but climate issues are only going one way.

We haven't got a PNG willing to take 10s of '000s of migrants, there is also the issue of sending genuine asylum seekers to Rwanda, never to be given the chance to come to the UK, regardless of family ties....

Would you honestly be happy to see the father, partner, brother or even the adult child of a Yezidi ISIS rape victim deported? or a Afghan who supported, perhaps even fought for the UK, being deported too?

Look, we have a migrant crisis, the UK has huge pull factors or those Albanians wouldn't have come here, maybe start addressing these "pulls" too?

On numbers go back to call where there are zero on Nauru

Safe routes alone won’t stop boats so whatever people think the public will be annoyed by continued drownings won’t be favoured

For the same reason Aus sticks with what works and citizens don’t vote for what people are suggesting

I haven’t said zero applications so that is still an option. What number the electorate goes for whether it’s 15k or 60k I’m fine with. People can decide

OK, so you agree safe routes are necessary as part of the overall plan.

Now, do you think the idea of being sent to Rwanda if caught coming into the UK, is going to be a significant deterrent to migrants crossing on boats? They aren't getting removed to Rwanda until they arrive in the UK.

I think many migrants have risked their lives to come here, the criminals among them already pay gangs to help them avoid detection so I expect many will still choose to take the risk and cross on boats.
And genuine asylum seekers have to suffer an additional trauma of going to Rwanda for "processing".

I can't see the Aus offshore processing working at all unless supported by safe routes and rapid turnback so the migrants never reach the UK. Our govt is proposing neither of those things so I don't believe their plan will work.

Nauru is a significant deterrent to those who tried in Aus, the person who implemented disagrees with posters here and has actual experience 🤷‍♂️

Give it a go and tackle it like the Aus do. Look at their other policies if that’s what people think is needed. Fine by me.

You can't rely on one politicians opinion when formulating policy. There are lots of reasons it might not work in the same way in the UK, which aren't being addressed

I'd be happier with the Rwanda plan as part of a package including safe routes so genuine asylum seekers got processed prior to arriving as much as possible and didn't get sent to Rwanda.

Our government only has Rwanda and barges. Nothing else. And that's the difference with Aus.

He is commenting on why he thinks it will work here, woth insight.

Plus that’s not right we do have routes to get here

How many people have been offered safe and legal routes?Between 2015 and 2022, we have offered places to almost half a million (481,804) people seeking safety. This includes:

• 44,659 family reunion grants since 2015
• 233,770 people under Ukraine Scheme visas, of which at least 154,500 have arrived in the UK
• 153,708 BN(O) status holders and their family members, of which 105,200 have arrived in the UK
• 49,667 vulnerable people and children as part of Afghan resettlement and relocation, the Syrian Resettlement programme and other resettlement programmes (e.g. UK Resettlement scheme, which has resettled 2,023 since its launch in 2021)

The UK is one of the largest recipients of UNHCR referred refugees globally, second only to Sweden in Europe since 2015.

The last line is news to me, but fine if so.

Half a million over 7 years is probably close to 60k a year, the number I said earlier, so fine by me.

And safe routes are part of the illegal migration bill so maybe you will be happy after all.

With

Indeed. And I'm not too comfortable about the thought of China continuing to get ever more powerful as we slowly sink.

Imagine if in a decade or two they decide to align themselves with somebody like Russia or support a country we're in political conflict with. We could get fucked big time.

Well, Nauru (a remote tiny island, escape impossible) isn't Rwanda, some refugees in Calais have said that if sent to Rwanda they would then try again to get to Europe or are you proposing imprisoning refugees (indefinitely) sent their?

You keep going on about the Australia experience but what we face and the proposed "solution" are not at all similar & we also do not have a PNG (which still has 12k refugees)

I note you don't answer whether you'd send to Rwanda an Afghan who fought for the British or an Yezidi victims close male family member there... because if you want to use Rwanda as a deterrent, you'll have to be prepared to send very vulnerable people to quite an unstable place

Some posters do seem to have been keen to demonstrate some of the beliefs you describe.

I am a little unsure as to why they aren't proud of their beliefs though and get upset when they are pointed out.

Australia is very much like the UK because it is surround by sea and the nearest country is 22 miles away.

You are aware that there were net 600,000 migrants to the UK in 2022.
Why do you focus on less than 10% of those?

Yes you’re right those extra 40 or so km meant no one tried to cross at all.