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 plenty of other places that could take people in too, like Japan, South Korea, the UAE. But they refuse to.

We have to remember, in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, we played a role in that war. We went in, lots of civilians were killed, the country's infrastructure destroyed and then when the Taliban came back around, we left.

Sorry but the Iraq war was a long time ago. Why should we forever be paying reparations to Afghanistan and Iraq by taking in endless millions of migrants that we can't afford or sustain? It's not realistic.

Should Germany still be paying reparations to Jewish people & half the world because of WW2? Where's the line?

I agree, we also need incentives. Doctors, nurses and teachers need to be properly paid. Currently they have the double whammy of expensive degrees and poor pay, that is never going to encourage anyone.

As for house building, we should not be relying on private companies who want to make a massive profit to build houses. We need government funded training and building projects. We need genuinely affordable housing in the form of council housing and privately owned housing. We need to start viewing adequate, safe housing as a basic human right, not a means for profiteering.

@Jamtartforme exactlyyyyy

@Sunsnet agreed about the housing. But it will never happen because the private companies would lose out, and since half the government probably has shares in them they won't want that 🤔 🤷

We absolutely should be prioritising Afghanistan, we left only a couple of years ago! What happened there is abhorrent.

Totally agree that we can't have open borders though, climate crisis is going to make today seem idyllic in terms of numbers of people having to move away from countries that become uninhabitable

The west has truly screwed over the world, in sucking wealth towards itself. People follow the money and in my view, we should be welcoming people who endure gruelling journeys with open arms - here are people who truly want to make something of themselves. Help them with safe routes (and check them), employ them, win win.

I think Choudary is a British citizen, so he has the same rights as the rest of us.

I have no time for the man or his views, but if denying British citizens rights based on their political or religious beliefs is the start of a very slippery slope.

YABU

Do you have an idea on how many people you’d like to arrive?

We should have thought about that before we started inserting ourselves all over the world shouldn't we?

@Sofiaxo germany paid reparations until 2010. That’s 65 years after the end of ww2. Big wrongs take a long time to right. That’s over 10 years for every year of the war. Britain has paid no reparations for centuries of empire and left swathes of the world in poverty, and made English the global language along the way. What did anyone think would happen? Of course people will go where they can live safely with their families. I would

@Oliotya yes! Couldn’t agree more

Another bonus will be putting people traffickers out of business and allowing people to bring the money they are currently giving to traffickers with them to put into legitimate UK businesses.

Wouldn’t people traffickers in this case just offer their services to those whose asylum application was declined?

So is that no limit? People are a bit evasive when it comes to numbers

@godlikeAI are you no limits too?

We have "no limits" now, you aren't proposing any (workable) solution.

The 15% reduction in numbers this year is purely down to the weather.

Some of the stupidity on this thread is astounding. Safe routes mean that people are not criminalised for coming here and applying for asylum. It means that people can apply for asylum from the UK embassy in their home country, and their claim will be properly scrutinised and processed.

Let's face it - not all those who oppose any safe routes for asylum seekers are racists, but all racists oppose safe routes.

You don’t need to take in any posts on here but listen to the Aus politician on LBC yesterday at around 10.15

He talks about the workable solution

How many would apply and how many would you say yes to?

Is there a workable way to impose a limit? Even if we limit the number we accept, there's a near never ending number we will have to do something with. We will never be able to control what other countries and their individual citizens do.
I'm of the opinion that this is a problem without a solution tbh.

@Oliotya what's the 'we'? Most ordinary Europeans have no responsibility for foreign policy decisions, yet it's ordinary Europeans whom immigration affects most. I'm sorry but I don't buy that at all. Have Britain, Ireland France and Spain been involved in events in Albania and Georgia? Also, don't just lump everyone in under the label 'The West'. Countries have very different records in this regard.

They aren't workable as the UK hasn't any 3rd countries to send migrants too.

Rwanda has agreed to take 1000 people, so less than 1% of the 137k currently waiting for an asylum decision.

Its all pie in the sky.

I completely agree. It isn't the fault of the everyday person. The government did this.

The root cause of the current crisis is the UK leaving the EU, we simply do not have any influence with the French and others now.

Well there you go then. Just as people fleeing their home for whatever reason aren't at fault either.