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.

'There are by some estimates over a million empty homes in the UK, the government's own estimate is that there are 700,000 empty homes.

'There is not a housing shortage in the UK. There is a problem of gross inequality in its distribution.'

Right? So THIS needs addressing - for both people wishing to come here and those who are already here, who don't have a suitable place to live.

'13 years ago, there were over 10000 more NHS beds. There were not long waiting lists and the NHS was not in the crisis it is now.

'What happened over those 13 years? Why did inequality in the UK increase dramatically in that time.'

Answer: The govt/NHS cut beds and the population increased. Obviously.

But my point still remains: whatever is causing these problems, it's these problems that need addressing first. Just simply adding to our population - however necessary it is to help these people - won't help solve them.

By all means though put forward an argument to change the law, because you do not want to help people fleeing persecution.

By the way, that’s a good example of why any type of discussion regarding immigration (and especially asylum seekers) is so difficult.
People twist other’s statements to fit their own narrative - so to point out that asylum seekers board boats in France and that France is a safe country somehow means ‘you do not want to help people fleeing persecution’.

Excellent point - that response sounded like a Chugger "oh so you don't want to help animals/homeless people etc"
We really need to be able to have a grown up debate without it always ending in childish insults.

I give to charity. Bit I do.not.give more.than I can afford. Same on asylum seekers. Filter carefully for the most.needy. particularly women.and.children and apply a cap.

It’s also fairly meaningless because they don’t say how many they would say yes to, and unless it’s everyone who wants to come they also will be part of ‘people will die because of you’ number

I wonder how often it was used? Can you say?

Between 2015 and 2018, 1395, thats 1395 more than the UK has so far sent back to the EU.... we could have sent back more but chose not too.

But the numbers don't matter, it acted as a deterrent (look at how many boat crossing there were in for example 2016 or 2018? the Channel hasn't got narrower...
So much like the threat of being sent to Rwanda is supposed to do, with just 1000 places available.... and we have to accept Rwandan asylum seekers in that deal too.

I may be confused, as most of the posts on this thread just refer to "migrants", but not all migrants are equal. Those fleeing persecution have different rights from economic migrants, but some posts seem to lump asylum seekers in with migrants generally.

As a signatory to the UN convention on refugees, the UK has a duty to accept those who are refugees. In order to comply with that duty, the UK govt therefore has to determine whether or not a person who claims asylum on entering the UK is a refugee or not.

The fact that the process of determining an asylum application takes so damn long is a disgrace imo, and it means that the cost of accommodating asylum seekers is far greater than it needs to be. If the process was speeded up, those who are found not to qualify for refugee status could be returned to their country of origin far more quickly. It would probably be cost-neutral to employ and train more people to process the applications as the cost of accommodating would fall. And those granted asylum would be able to work and contribute to the economy more quickly.

Are those who are advocate some sort of quota system suggesting that any quota should include refugees as well as economic migrants? And if so, would they advocate the UK resiling from the 1951 UN Convention?

It was no where near a deterrent.

‘The annual number of asylum applications to the UK peaked in 2002 at 84,132.’

I think i asked you this already - most of the asylum seekers crossed other borders before getting to France. Why is it any more France's problem to deal with than ours?

How can you put a quota on asylum seekers and refugees? Political situatiions for example can change overnight.

Sorry, your war came too late, we filled our quota

Aus is still part of the 1951 convention and a signatory

..and they were all from the EU, where the migrant had registered first?

But you raise an interesting point, if being sent back to an EU country is no deterrent, why is sending to Rwanda going to be?

...and with just 1000 places, they'll be full and then what?

Oh just realised, Dublin 3 (which i was referring to) was only ratified into UK law in 2014.

Because it very rarely happened and is just something people revert to around Brexit but it’s pretty much irrelevant

Nauru or similar works because people do not want to be there and they can’t try again

How many arrivals do people think France will or should take back?

1. In my opinion they are just as much our problem as France's problem, if they make it here without being intercepted then it's our issue to deal with.

I don't think France should wave them through, but neither do I think we should expect France to actively intercept UK migrants.

I get that with Nauru and PNG but Rwanda isn't an Island and as the migrants wont be imprisoned as they were (in effect) with Australia, they can and will try again.

I wouldn't dismiss Dublin so easily, the boat crossing numbers show that something changed in 2020 and it wasn't the UK getting closer to France.

Again, all I said was that it sounds disingenuous when someone claims asylum seekers embarking on a dangerous boat journey shows how desperate they are to leave home, because it’s not ‘home’ they’re leaving on that boat, but France.
That doesn’t mean that I think it should be France’s problem and not UK’s.

You’re better off looking at general changes in movement of people, not just to here.

About 105,000 people have arrived through the central Mediterranean route in 2022, a considerable increase from the 67,500 people who arrived in 2021, the 34,000 in 2020, and 11,500 in 2019

It’s not a Channel only issue

Dublin III in 2014 had zero impact on EU as in 2015 what is known as migrant crisis occurred. It’s pointless looking at as a deterrent because it’s not designed to be one at all.

As for location of Rwanda, I doubt many would want to do that journey too many times. People will not want to pay £5k to end up on planes to Rwanda.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/17/uk-minister-admits-big-fall-in-returns-of-boat-arrivals-since-brexit

Tbf anyone claiming France will take people back is likely to be making it up

They have no reason to do this, and plenty of issues of their own

You said
"People twist other’s statements to fit their own narrative - so to point out that asylum seekers board boats in France and that France is a safe country somehow means ‘you do not want to help people fleeing persecution’."

Sounds like you think asylum seekers should stay in France- not our problem

Mexico to US has also surged. We’re starting to see more mass movement of people. I can’t see it reducing, unless you’re Aus whose chart is the opposite

If we are basing Rwanda on the success of Australia's policy why arent people acknowledging that numbers of arrivals in Ausatralia only fell after they instigated the pushbacks?

Off shore processing was introduced in NAura and PNG in 2012.

The numbers of arrivals the next year increased from 17,204 to 20587.

Arrivals dropped immediately after the pushbacks began in September 2013.

5 v 289 is a big difference?

Oh dear at this

I think we’ve got bigger issues incoming