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 posted this before but more do go to France.

However someone responded that so they should as France is a bigger country! So then we got on to whether Russia would be a better solution if it's only land mass that counts.

@Middlelanehogger "France doesn't have any more responsibility than we do to house them so I do agree with PP that we need a cross-Europe solution."

Well I wish you joy of that one.

Most European countries have big problems with migrants.

France has people coming across the Med from North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa and Asia,

Spain has the majority of their migrants coming from Morocco 59,000 in 2021

Italy has migrants coming from Libya, Tunisia and Turkey

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/migrant-arrivals-italy-rise-despite-high-danger-2023-02-26/#:~:text=refugee%20agency%20(UNHCR)%20said%20in,Tunisia%20and%2015%25%20from%20Turkey.

Greece has it's own set of problems-

https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/news/154102-illegal-immigrants-have-entered-greece-since-beginning-of-2022/

The OP was about safe routes
I think providing a safe alternative for asylum seekers/refugees to be able to apply from outside the UK would be helpful, as then the government can use that to assess claims and turn down applications from people who have come on boats without using that route as it implies they aren't genuine.
Faster processing of applications so people who aren't genuine are returned quicker and lose the money they have paid smugglers with no reward.
Better enforcement on businessed that use illegal workers/modern slavery so there as many aren't jobs to attract illegal economic migrants.
And I'd probably work with the French to process applications on their side of the channel so fewer migrants cross in the first place. I'd rather pay the French to stop the boats, than try to find people once they have crossed into the UK and pay to fly them to Rwanda.
I'd probably also be looking at beefing up UK border force with more at sea patrolling and better intelligence operations.

Rwanda, barges and painting over murals would be quite low down on my list of priority actions if I was in charge. I'm not unfortunately.

Well you are the one that wants a Australian system of deporting everyone who come here, regardless of their claim or vulnerability but seem unable or unwilling to make clear that will mean deporting to Rwanda extremely vulnerable and deserving people who can never come to the UK...

I think its actually more telling that very few in Europe want an Australian immigration model, far right parties aside.

Regardless, unless we deport to the Falklands, we haven't got the Aus option.

and turn down applications from people who have come on boats without using that route as it implies they aren't genuine.

How does that work with current international law?

You can’t turn down someone due to the way they arrive. They need to be processed.

And yet Australia isn’t ‘far right’

It isn’t even Liberal. It’s Labor

Their policies are now bi partisan because everyone knows they’d be utterly mad to go back to the boats arriving.

I didn't say they were.... though it was a policy introduced by a right of centre party.

But deporting every single asylum seeker regardless of what they've been through or the veracity of their claim is not a policy supported by many mainstream European parties, its also not one the USA support either.

Were does Australia threaten to send migrants too now then, if not Nauru?

On the Falklands, its actually an excellent place to send migrants (if you back the Aus plans) we own them & of course we'd very quickly see if the Australian model would work wouldn't we?

Were does Australia threaten to send migrants too now then, if not Nauru?

Why do you say this? Because there are zero refugees on Nauru?

It’s still the location but people do not pay traffickers to end up there so it’s zero. They will never get to Australia if they arrive by boat, are you sure you listened to the Aus politician, it was all extremely clear

As for far right the EU is shifting as it will continue to do. Talks of banning far right party in Germany due to surge in the polls.

They won’t be able to do some things Aus or the U.K. can but that doesn’t mean they won’t get tension and disharmony from those who don’t want it.

Which is exactly why Putin uses movement of people to EU as a destabilising tactic. Apart from some on mn and elsewhere who see it as all rainbows and goodness (usually from privilege) political analysts know what it can do.

The US have huge people movement and are starting to see their own protests, it’ll get more pronounced.

"No-one supports more control of immigration/borders aside from far-right parties"

"How are you defining far-right parties?"

"All those bigots who want more controls on immigration/borders"

I nearly finished with "and don't tell me I don't understand, I'm not an expert so of course i don't" just for you cloudy. I was answering the question.

I'm in no position to influence but that's what I'd like to see. Same way you want to send 65,000 people to Rwanda next year

You can’t get around international law though. No one can that’s the issue countries face. You don’t need to be an expert just listen to people who are.

You thought the Aus politician was ‘wrong’ didn’t you, that takes self belief for sure when he so clearly and simply summed up the law.

On those lines I’d like world peace and climate to stop getting worse since we’re ordering our non viable wish list.

Plus you’re wrong about the 65k. I’ve said 60k to U.K. on asylum. Zero out as Nauru has.

If you’re going to try to sum up other people’s positions at least get close to what they’re after 🤷‍♂️

No I think the Aus politician was presenting a rosy aspect of a very complicated picture based on his opinion.
It's a more informed opinion than mine. But that doesn't mean it's "right" and also needs to be balanced against the fact he's a politician so adept at presenting one side of an argument persuasively.

That's why I say you can't use one expert to make policy.

You are very black/white, right/wrong. It must make life difficult.

OK, I misunderstood. So your position is the same as Braverman: we can take 60,000 people but they have to come by preapproved routes or they get sent to Rwanda.

Safe routes already exist and establishing more is not a priority - as it doesn't deter migrants.

Rwanda will be so off-putting that noone will try to come via other routes in future so any other migration will fall to 0.

Is that right?

My life is not difficult at all, I find many things interesting and like hearing about and understanding legal situations that ultimately affect me and my dc.

I don’t get your position of not even noticing the law but also having that high level of self belief.

You cannot say no to people who turn up in a boat. You have to process them.

That’s why, going back to the title of this thread, safe routes won’t stop boats

How can they? There is no legal mechanism to do so. Your solution can’t happen.

It’s also pretty much the opposite of ‘black / white and right / wrong’

I think that’s more apt for the let people in without a limit to be good posts

There is no easy, perfect solution. Even less so now as things change globally.

Well yes I didn't say otherwise. I said if there were safe routes for people to use, then there could be an assessment question in processing about why people who came on boats didn't use those routes, and they could be deported more quickly.

Your way sounds like we have to send 65,000 people to Rwanda for processing and back again which is bonkers.

Or are asylum seekers found stowed away in freezer lorries/plane under carriages/shipping containers treated differently than boat people?

You thought the Aus politician was ‘wrong’ didn’t you, that takes self belief for sure when he so clearly and simply summed up the law.
This is a black and white interpretation of what I (and others) have said multiple times about that politician.

ok so if 500k to 1m apply how many are a yes? I mean there’s no barrier to applying if you’re in country, so why wouldn’t it be high?

And if they say I had to leave quickly my life was in danger, what then?

Are you going to process from every country and how many locations within each to ensure people can access it, and if online everyone has access to the internet and resources?

It’s very unlikely you can use it against people, you would be sending people back to persecution because they didn’t fill out an application. You have to process people however they arrive by law.

There’s no to ‘Rwanda and back’ btw. It’s also not high numbers. Remind me how many were there are on Nauru?

You think his understanding of international law is wrong?

Can you say why?

Black and white again
There is difference between fact and inference
I think his facts are right (understanding the law)
But his inference is wrong (the same law would have the same effect in the UK)

It is not possible to know whether his inference is right or wrong, its a matter of individual judgement for each person.

Black and white thinking is dangerous, especially in politics, and how we ended up with Brexit.

Answer my question first and I'll answer yours

But if you agree his legal understanding is correct why do you think you can have your approach?

International law means you can’t

It’s safe routes plus drownings / boats or Aus approach and no boats

There is no safe route magical solution

You’ll end up with more than Brexit btw if you ignore the outcome of more safe routes (we already have some) and more boats / drownings

@AdamRyan

But your suggestion makes no sense

The safe route would have so many applications and appeals it would be totally and utterly swamped with applications.

Then those who miss out will still go on the boats

Realistically, we won't be deporting anyone to Afghanistan now, even if they would not have qualified for asylum. So you can have all the faster processing you want, but you can't force countries to take back people who have left.

I asked because there are 12k migrants currently in PNG, Nauru wasn't the only final solution for Australia's boat people problem.

...also (i ve long standing family in Australia & you appear to have connections there too?) they say another reason the boats have stopped is because the countries they were coming from have become better places to live.......

So onto the recent Senegal drownings, people there just want to be able to sell fish and feed their families but they cannot, so they rtry to get to Europe. ... surely not beyond the wit of man to pay them enough to be able to do this? even if the fish was turned into pet food at a loss...

The lorry one? I’m not sure what you are asking

Why treated differently?