People facing a fear of discrimination should not be able to claim refugee status apparently.

[cakeorwine]

Women fleeing countries where they could be stoned to death, treated as second class citizens. For example, women from Afghanistan.

LGBT people who live in countries where you can be arrested and face the death penalty for being LGBT.

I'm surprised that this Government allow Ukrainian refugees in. Their country has only been invaded but I guess that's their tough luck

"Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC, Ms Braverman is expected to say: “I think most members of the public would recognise those fleeing a real risk of death, torture, oppression or violence, as in need of protection.
“However, as case law has developed, what we have seen in practice is an interpretive shift away from ‘persecution’, in favour of something more akin to a definition of ‘discrimination’.
“And a similar shift away from a ‘well-founded fear’ toward a ‘credible’ or ‘plausible fear’.
“The practical consequence of which has been to expand the number of those who may qualify for asylum, and to lower the threshold for doing so.

“Let me be clear, there are vast swathes of the world where it is extremely difficult to be gay, or to be a woman.

“Where individuals are being persecuted, it is right that we offer sanctuary.
“But we will not be able to sustain an asylum system if in effect, simply being gay, or a woman, and fearful of discrimination in your country of origin, is sufficient to qualify for protection.”

So you have to wait until you actually get persecuted, till you get arrested, tortured etc before you can flee a country.

Oh - and apparently she has an issue with coming through safe countries?

Does she know how many refugees actually come to the UK compared to the rest of the world?

We take very few.

https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/statistics

Turkey has 3 million
Germany has 2 million
1 in 5 refugees are Syrians fleeing the war there.

Schengen was only signed after the EU was founded. Ending it doesn't mean the end of the EU. Yes it would damage trade to restrict free movement. That's what I'm saying. All major countries choose to prioritize economic growth, cheap labour, bank profits etc.

I don't think you do have to use force actually. Hungary refused to participate in Merkel's little adventure in 2015. It used lots of methods but I don't believe force was a major factor. European countries literally aren't even willing to change their currently insane immigration laws. It's a little premature to say sinking boats would be needed!

We can't accommodate the volume of people. We have a housing crisis, an NHS crisis and a schools crisis. There is already the perception that we are prioritising boat people above our own citizens. Without increasing taxes to provide better resources from already financially stretched working people we cannot afford to take anyone else. It's brutal and cruel, but continuing as we are is to our own detriment.

So you think you could forcibly deport, say Afghans, Syrians or Sudanese back to their home countries?

I think these countries Govt's might have something to say about that when the plane carrying them tries to land...

Changes to the UN charter on Refugees isn't going to stop people coming here.

We cannot help everyone, and we shouldn’t try.

We need to focus on the people we have here.

Discrimination and persecution are not the same things and refugee status was originally intended for those with a well founded fear. If the interpretation of the legislation/ convention becomes too broad then there is a risk that it will create a negative backlash. The vast majority of people will agree with protecting anyone in genuine fear for their life or liberty but broaden it too far and it will lead to resentment. Wanting a better life is not the same as fleeing persecution.

If a person lives in a country where they are at risk of being executed for homosexuality I think most of us would class that as being rather more serious than simple discrimination.

@Pollyputhekettleon The migrants could easily by pass Hungary, not applicable... how would you stop boats crossing the med, the channel? and what exactly would France do?

Push back? try that in a rough sea with 400 people on a small wreck of fishing boat and see what happens?

Desperately trying to scrape votes together from Brexiteers.

There are lots of things you could do. Those countries refuse to accept deportees because western countries allow them to refuse to accept deportees while, in many cases, accepting masses of foreign aid from the same western countries. People from those countries are permitted to board planes into Europe because European countries allow it.

You could deport those already here and who are supposed to be deported to a third country. It would be expensive to bribe someone to take them, of course, but then decades of stupidity and greed is expensive to fix.

Changing the laws is only a first step.

There are two misperceptions here.

The first one is that many workers left. Some did, but definitely not the big part, we have over 6 million people staying with different forms of EUSS. And many more are coming to join family.

Of those who left, the majority were single. Families stayed, because the children are going to school and the parents want them to have their education in the UK.

People are moved already.

Aus is as an example, which has been set up for some time but also Albanians can be, and have been returned due to recent agreement

France is talking about Senegal etc

We're part of that international community.

Unfortunately we as a nation seem hell bent on making more refugees than trying to solve the crisis.

There are absolutely dozens of things governments could do if they wanted to. Those people are coming to western countries because they're aware of the current state of the law and its enforcement in western countries. Change the insane laws first, and then we could see what more is necessary.

This is entirely academic because western governments have implemented mass immigration policies for decades and have no desire to stop them now. I believe they will eventually, once national populist policies take over everywhere, including on the left, as they will. But we're not there yet.

Mass migration was always controlled before (from outside of Europe) so we determined how many as did France with Algerians or Spain with Moroccans.

Its totally different now, we have no means to limit and if dozens of things could be done and the issues are easily resolved then i suggest politicians would all be clamouring to implement them.. they are not.

People are coming to Europe, they are held in camps, hotels, live on the streets, cannot claim benefits or work, yet still they come.

The "Australian" argument is irrelevant, the numbers weren't the same & europe doesn't have a handy off shore island away from the prying eyes of the media.

We don't have the infrastructure for our own people. The NHS is breaking, school classes are huge, the roads are horrendous across the south east.

I don't particularly care that we take fewer people than, say, Turkey - a huge country without a taxpayer funded public health system. To compare is senseless.

Braverman is guilty of much but I don't disagree with this speech.

Do you have any facts to support those assertions? This thread is pretty short of them.

@Alexandra2001

Why would politicians want to limit immigration now when they've implemented mass immigration policies for decades? It was 'controlled' in the sense that it was a deliberate policy decision yes. They've set out their reasons for that policy many times over the years. After WW2 it was labour shortages, later it was the demographic problem, then it was just that diversity is good for you, now I think it's labour shortages again. I can't keep track.

You most certainly did not control how many asylum seeker/refugees arrived before now though! How could you have done that? The laws are the same now as then. Other forms of migration were always under government control, sure.

You seem to have a faith that politicians genuinely want to limit immigration now and I don't know where that's coming from. All I can suggest to you is that we have decades upon decades of evidence of politicians saying that, and somehow, every single time, in every single country, achieving precisely the opposite.

Most people coming to Europe are not living on the streets eating out of rubbish bins (and asylum seekers do get benefits and some countries do allow them to work - Ireland, for example). How would they live if they couldn't work and got no benefits?! Their quality of life is better here, and more importantly they expect it to get better as time goes on, and to be better for their children if they have any. If they're stuck in the crappiest of countries in terms of provision, like Greece, they expect to be able to move to greener pastures in time. They're not irrational, that's why they come.

I agree with this

The right will introduce it but the left won’t change it.

As already seen in Aus with Labor

Once the issue is solved you would be mad to reverse and Labor knew it. They were criticised by groups but they know what the electorate will vote for

@Pollyputhekettleon No you miss my point & cannot claim benefits in most of Europe nor allowed to work,
In many cases people come here thinking it'll be amazing, then find it isn't, maybe better than where they ve come from but not great, however they are now trapped here.
The UK is renowned for being able to work illegally, its incredibly easy.

Disagree on the mass migration into europe stuff, according to you, its an easy win for any politician.. yet its not, as Meloni is finding out and Mr Sunak too.

No i don't have any faith in politicians, they are mostly out for themselves, Sunak would win the next GE if he could stop migration into the UK... he can't, its not as easy as you think.

Denmark’s left wing parties agree on an almost zero refugee policy and have for years.

Yes. Denmark is who I was thinking of when I said even the left will adopt national populist policies in time.

Absolutely. We could get at least 5000 tents in Hyde Park, for the members of the ‘everyone is welcome party ‘ to stay in while the ladies live in their houses.

This is entirely academic because western governments have implemented mass immigration policies for decades and have no desire to stop them now. I believe they will eventually, once national populist policies take over everywhere, including on the left, as they will. But we're not there yet

We will see european electorates turn a blind eye as nation states use force to turn back migrant boats in the Med, it will happen, not yet i agree but soon.

Denmark has seen a marked increase in non Western migration in recent years too.

Ok, can you say how many?

Practically how are you doing this

Every single poster here bringing up 'paying for them' etc. IT IS FACT THAT IMMMIGRANTS HAVE A NET POSITIVE EFFECT ON THE ECONOMY. So bore off, or at least argue from your honest viewpoint, which is you just don't want to share the country want other people who aren't like you.