We cannot continue taking on immigrants indefinitely

[MobilityCat]

I'll probably be shot down for saying this but Immigration should be strictly controlled or we'll all become significantly disadvantaged. While international law doesn't require asylum seekers to stay in the first safe country they reach, some governments argue they should. There is a belief that the UK has a fairer asylum process, more legal protections, and better opportunities for work and education compared to other countries. While the reality may be different, word of mouth and social media often spread the idea that the UK is a good place to seek asylum. Our reputation as a desirable asylum destination is straining social services, housing, and the asylum system. The NHS and schools face increased pressure, housing shortages worsen, and asylum backlogs lead to long waits and high costs. Public frustration is growing, fueling political divisions. The system is unsustainable due to financial burdens, fairness concerns, and security risks.

But it is. The population is increasing.

Do you think British nationals should be allowed to emigrate set up homes in Spain or France?

The number one thing that will reduce increase immigration illegal or otherwise is to improve the stability of other countries
The things that will help include:

1. Reducing poverty across the world. Improving health standards so more children survive and people have less of them and have a higher quality of life. Less likely to want to come
2. Improving access to decent reliable contraception.
3. Slowing down climate change. this is going to be the biggest driver immigration soon as people lose their land through rising sea levels, or be unable to access water for growing crops.
4. Help keep world more stable. The rise of populism is going to create a potential world war which were result in mass migration.

If the rule that refugees have to stay in the first safe country they arrive in the UK would have a very very small number of asylum seekers.

The fact is that the electorate want:

1. Managed migration (not mass migration) of people with useful skills.
2. To help a reasonable number of people genuinely fearing for their lives and to prevent people risking their lives further by crossing the channel.
3. To be able to deport people who fail in their asylum claim or who violate the terms of their visa/commit crimes.

Politicians have failed to deliver the first because it benefits big business to just import as much cheap labour as possible. They have failed on the second for more complex reasons which I find more understandable, though the situation remains unacceptable. They have also failed on the third which is unconscionable.

People are 100% allowed to feel mad as hell when politicians have been floridly and repeatedly dishonest about immigration, for the benefit of the ruling class. Boris Johnson is the worse offender on this.

Yy to differentiating between asylum seekers and immigrants and where the person came from. For example many EU migrants paid more tax than they cost the tax payer and I’m assuming that you see an immigrant working in the NHS differently to an asylum seeker who can’t work and has to wait for a decision before they can become a tax payer.

Why are you talking about asylum seekers?

Most immigrants are legal and coming to the UK on working or student visas. The numbers allowed to do so expanded massively under the Tory government.

Jordan has taken far more than it's "fair share" IMO.

As at 2024, the country of 11 million hosted more than 1.3 million refugees; the vast majority were Syrian nationals, and around 77,335 came from other countries.

If anyone has been to Jordan you'll have seen "tent city" sprawling all along the east bank of the Jordan River.

Japan does not take refugees.
The reason is that Japan is notoriously xenophobic. So there is little impetus to make changes and make it easier for true refugees to seek asylum. Japan is afraid of people who are different and believe that they will pollute their society.

You're saying the only way to stop mass migration is to make the whole world as good as Britain - do you really think that's a realistic solution to the problem?

While international law doesn't require asylum seekers to stay in the first safe country they reach, some governments argue they should.

I imagine it's fairly easy to guess where those governments are. And those politicians may have different views if they were based in a different country.

Which is fine, but they all pretend it's a genuine ideological position, not one based on the country they're in.

Asylum seekers are fewer in number than legal overseas workers but much, much more expensive per person. I think
its about £600,000 till they get LTR and then whatever the bill is (£500,000) if you’re low-skilled, which a few aren’t.

The taxpayer forks out but the human losers are the poor locals who miss out on homes and healthcare. Asylum
seekers take top priority on homes, schools and health throughout the UK.

Luckily most asylum seekers are young, fit as fiddles men, so healthcare is not too badly restricted for locals. Homes and decent schools for the low paid working are not helped, however.

If only it were a racist argument - it’s a added-suffering-for-working-humans money argument.

The UK could still voluntarily accept asylum seekers who have stayed in other countries though. As they did with the Ukraine scheme - they accepted asylum seekers who were in Poland and other places.

We were in A&E a couple of weeks ago and I'm pretty confident no-one else there a) actually needed to be there and b) was born outside the UK. I'm not sure it's asylum seekers bringing the NHS to its knees, I think it might be stupid people.

Asylum seekers only make up a small percentage of immigrants. Most immigrants come in on a visa handed out by the government, which then allows a fast track to becoming a British citizen.

Legal immigrants make up the vast majority of the 1.3 million or so people who come to the U.K. each year.

Despite the huge strain this puts on public services, we've been told we need immigration for economic reasons.

However, even the government's own body has now admitted that each of these immigrants is estimated to cost the country almost half a million pounds over their lifetime more than they contribute. Only a tiny percentage will be net economic contributors.

How anyone thinks this is sustainable is beyond me.

You're telling porkies. Asylum seekers get housing, a weekly stipend of about £50 and NHS treatment.

Well at the moment they're mostly not allowed to...

Personally I don't think we should have left the EU but in general I think countries should only accept people who are useful to them.

Immigrants are supporting the UK, doing the jobs ‘we’ won’t.

Locally we have care workers from the Phillipines, working in the residential facilities for disabled adults, the local large care home has employed 48 workers from India and my LA 30 social workers from Africa.

My school caretaker/cleaner returned to Poland dye to Brexit, still not replaced.

Perhaps ‘we’ need to get off our ar*ses to train to do the much needed (but less palatable) jobs here.

The figure relates to the cost overall to the state, not what asylum seekers individually get. It has been disputed though, see here: https://fullfact.org/immigration/asylum-seeker-net-contributions/

My opinion exactly. I DO have some immigrant friends. They ALL work in the NHS full-time. Pay taxes.

I have one asylum seeker friend. It took her 14 years to be given leave to remain. A teacher in her own country, she was unable to work here in all of that time. She works now. She couldn't go home because she's part of a religious minority group who would have been killed.

Out of my white British friends, about 1/4 are currently living and working overseas. Asia, Spain, Switzerland, France, Germany, USA.

• Migration is normal.
• Plenty of Brits live in other countries (I have lived and worked in 5 other countries).
• Migrants to the UK almost inevitably work and contribute through taxes.
• Unlike many of the native British population.

No counter argument so immediately descend to childish insults.

I was left flabbergasted when someone claimed the other day that 700,000 immigrants a year puts no pressure on the housing in this country! Never mind all other services. Meanwhile GDP per capita plummets as new arrivals overall take out much more than they put in.

We even have a court in Liverpool that deals solely with FGM cases.... something unheard of in this country 50 years ago as we are unable to police our borders in any meaningful way.

Immigration needs to be very very carefully controlled, not a free for all.

What asylum seekers are entitled to.

Are you talking about immigrants or asylum seekers? They’re not the same thing. If we restrict immigration then we need to also get people who are able to work but currently aren’t employed into any job they can physically do.

The same people that complain their standard of living is going down compared to previous generations will be the same people that call you racist for pointing out such facts. They have zero ability to understand cause and effect.

What court in Liverpool deals solely with FGM? I think there have been about two convictions since it was outlawed so they're not doing a very good job.

Adding that I worked with refugees.

I was privvy to the Home Office information about the men, women and children

HORRIFIC. I couldn't finish reading about what they had been through, including the babies and children. I couldn't even start to write about it here.

Think about what you may imagine these people have gone through and times it by 1000. Unimaginable for us,