What would you do about immigration?

[stateofthem]

I’ve seen an awful lot of political posts here recently, generally displeased with labour (other policies are for a separate thread) and taking hard stances on immigration.

I often feel as though people have a very blinkered view on immigration which does sway the argument. It seems to be either “let everyone in” or “let no one in” as such.

One point I wish to make is that currently you must be in the UK to be able to make an asylum claim. This (in my opinion) is the biggest factor in small boats/mass migration.

If I were in charge I would propose the following:

Re-implement the ability to seek asylum from abroad via one safe legal channel. Enforce that applications must be made via this route (obviously with concessions for no internet, poor English etc).

Applications are reviewed on a case by case basis, and if rejected, a person is placed onto a register explaining the reason for rejection (and possibly a timescale of when they could reapply).

Anyone who does not follow this channel is returned to their country of origin.

Anyone who arrives having not followed this policy is returned to their country of origin.

I appreciate that the above would need a lot of work and investment, and it’s not quite as straightforward as how I set it out, but I feel as if it’s a reasonable response which allows some migrants but not uncontrolled.

at the moment it feels as though both sides of the coin are offering very extreme solutions either way, and I feel as though someone needs to offer a more reasonable and middle way approach.

I am interested to hear others opinions on this, and if you disagree, what would you do instead?

We should be doing both.

I think we also need to remember that the UK has had a historical hand to play in creating the instability and hardship that we are now seeing play out. This will get worse as climate change starts to render some areas unlivable and people need to migrate to survive.

If you want to see an end to migration then you need to start looking at more global aid policies that involve long term planning in partnership with local communities rather than the current sticky plaster approach to aid. We also can't be involved in wars and then leave people with the aftermath of that war creating a vacuum for extremism to grow.

The problem with this is its all a big circle , people get concerned about immigration, people get very insular and want to prioritise their own resources, people want to do less to support and empower global neighbours, more people look to migrate, and so on it goes. If you are concerned about migration are you living sustainably, are you purposefully offsetting your carbon footprint, are you actively paying into global empowerment funds, are you voting and pressuring government to prioritise these key issues? If you aren't doing that then you cannot complain when immigration inevitably lands at your door.

Don't allow this situation to happen - i knew an albanian woman who was refused asylum and deported. She returned, was caught, given a year for her case to be heard, and disappeared, as she intended to.

Also we knew a bengladeshi guy, who was granted asylum, and promptly went to the india/bengladeshi border (carefully staying on the indian side) and his family brought over a young woman (a stranger for him to marry) who he bought back here.

The asylum system which is riddled with holes and exploited by lawyers.

That's contributions based which means you've paid enough NI to get it. In that case no but the ones who have never worked in life so get UC version of HSA are different.

Yes we should definitely do away with the human rights convention.

Let's look at what protected rights doing so would under cut shall we?

• right to life
• freedom from torture

-freedom from slavery

• right to liberty
• right to a fair trial
• right not to be punished for something that wasn't against the law at the time
• the right to respect for family and private life
• freedom of thought conscience and religion
• freedom of expression
• freedom of assembly
• right to marry and have a family
• the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights
• the right to protection of property
• the right to education
• the right to participate in free election
• the abolition of the death penalty

You cannot undermine one of these without destabilising them all and creating precedent for their removal. So nothing then for the government to uphold fair elections, nothing to stop the government just taking ownership of your house or the banks keeping your money, nothing to protect gay marriage rights, nothing to say you deserve a fair trial if wrongly accused of something...

These things affect and protect every single one of us. So simply saying let's do away with it to stop migration is incredibly short sighted.

Why do you want welfare cut?

They want welfare cut because they are ill informed and don't realise that most people on welfare work or are genuinely ill/disabled and that there are often very complex reasons why the rest don't work.

They also probably don't realise how close most of us are to losing our jobs and relying on welfare.

They also don't give two shits about anyone vulnerable and prefer a 'look after yourself' social model and don't seem to realise the links between poverty and crime, or poverty and poorer health outcomes. Otherwise they'd know that cutting welfare is an incredibly stupid idea that will negatively affect us all.

Thanks. I appreciate your sentiments. I'm more curious as to their viewpoint. People often seem to confidently state that welfare must be cut but not explain why. I'm interested. If you're shouting for less support for disabled children and people with cancer and poverty-stricken pensioners, I think it's reasonable to ask why.

1. Asylum claims to be lodged in country of origin or residency with no exceptions. Immediate return of anyone who does not comply with this. Annual cap on the number who can be accepted based on UK's ability to house and support them.
2. The Royal Navy in the Channel returning all small boat migrants to France, Belgium, etc immediately. They don't get to set foot in the UK.
3. No recourse to public funds until citizenship granted. You come here and you have to work and support yourself unless you have been granted asylum on humanitarian grounds and need time to learn the language or find work, but this should be for a limited time only.
4. Immediate deportation of all foreign criminals, excluding those who have been convicted of political crimes for which they have fled their home country. But if they've been convicted of theft, mugging, burglary, rape, or any violent crime then they aren't someone that we want in this country. They should either be immediately removed or once their prison sentence has been served. No exceptions and no 'right to family life'.
5. Central government ID database allowing police and immigration officials to immediately check whether someone is entitled to be here or not. Anyone caught living here illegally is deported with no recourse to legal aid.
6. Legal aid only available to UK citizens and legal permanent residents.
7. English language and citizenship lessons for all migrants.
8. Streamlined immigration route for migrants who come to the UK to fill essential skills gaps.

Asylum claims to be lodged in country of origin or residency

So you live in a country with an authoritarian government that, for example, executes gay people, and murders members of the opposition. You wish to seek asylum at the British Embassy (or any other country), just how do you expect this to happen, and what do you think might happen to your family and friends if you tried to do so?

Um, you visit the British Embassy and apply?

I think the point is that if a person were to be seen visiting the embassy, they might be at risk of harm.

I imagine they thought the same when the British went to their countries, took what they wanted and made themselves at home. But of course that doesn't matter as it was a long time ago. 🙄

Glad we agree

@Lavender14

i don’t want to repeal the human rights act or the convention, but it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that it’s the only reason why we have a protected right to vote in the U.K. The UK has been a democracy with a right to vote for a long time. I think this hysterical nonsense that no one will have any rights if they don’t like part of the package really does the cause no good at all.

@Lavender14
have you heard of habeus corpus, for example?

I understand that but when you start to peel things back then you find yourself on a slippery slope.

Australia has managed to control who enters their country without sacrificing the human rights of Australians. It can be done, if there is a will to do it. In the UK their are too many vested interests and the lawyer class on a never-ending immigration gravy train have a lot to answer for.

But if the results of yesterday's election are anything to go by, things may change in the future. A lot of people are fed up of the notion that we can't control our borders and we just have to suck it up whether we like it or not.

The only person who would buy my house would be another dodgy landlord at a reduced price as the area has now got such a bad reputation. It breaks my heart, I worked so hard as a single parent to buy and renovate my little house. As you say we need to address the "all immigration is good", the culture which has now become very prevelant in my area have as my other (immigrant) neighbour put it " no respect and no standards" . Thank goodness my other neighbours are good kind friendly people.

How do the Aussies manage to control their borders, then? Last time I looked, Australia hasn't become an authoritarian hellhole just because they are successfully managing who enters their country.

No they haven’t, they and NZ still are in top of the human rights tables.

Yes, agreed, that's what I thought. The idea that it isn't possible to control who enters our country is just more gaslighting. A lot of people have had enough of it.

Make the home office fit for purpose

To stimulate the labour market. Leading to less unskilled immigration, leading to higher wages. Supply and demand. Welfare artificially manipulates the labour market and wages, and encourages low skilled immigration.

Simple answer is to make the world a better place where people don't need to move away from loved ones and support networks to have a perceived better life. Where people can stay and be integral to the success of their own communities, and continue the rich cultural practices and identity that make us all different and the world a more interesting place. Instead of the championing of multicultural beige driven by the global elites.

I also don’t think that large organisations should be allowed to prioritise recruitment based on ethnic minority status.

If people want to come and work here, fine but I don’t know of any other country that treats its born and bred citizens worse than first or second generation immigrants. Fair treatment for all, yes, treating us worse to fulfil some arbitrary quota, no.

We need far better pipeline planning so that we educate and train our own NHS staff including specialists instead of poaching skilled staff from abroad and leaving our prospective staff jobless.