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?

Australia took a pretty hard line against illegal boat arrivals. Towing back boats, offshore processing and detention, and no chance of permanent settlement for people who arrived illegally. Cross party agreement.

Yes, showing that it can be done where there is the will to do it. There's nothing written in stone saying the UK cannot be resolute and strong when it's required.

@Lavender14

i really don’t agree. The current interpretation of those rights is more likely to erode democracy in some cases - I think that law abiding citizens actually have rights too, to live in a country in which they are protected and in which the social contract functions. Unfortunately, the way that the rights are interpreted in the U.K. mean that certain rights are actually interpreted as being greater in scope than in France/germany (because the government’s discretion to do what is needed in the public interest is given less weight and the individual’s rights are given more weight), but in addition to that there are lots of cases of ECHR overreach. This is recognised by many countries- in fact, it’s enlightened scandi countries that are trying to lead on reform. It cannot be in the interests of democracy to prevent the deportation of criminals to countries with less comfortable prisons, or failed asylum seekers who have less access to good healthcare in their home country. It unfortunately strips the legitimacy out of the concept of rights and undermines public trust in them. Unfortunately, these conventions are being abused. I don’t want to see them repealed, so something needs to be done. I think the real slippery slope is the slope to resentment and irrelevance.

Very true. Human rights law seems to have been weaponised in favour of the most heinous criminals and each Albanian criminal (like Klevis Disha) who wins the right to stay because he managed to get a girl pregnant and his child won’t eat Albanian chicken nuggets creates stronger case law to be used for further cases.

It is no small significance that our current Prime Minister was a human rights lawyer and is now presiding over a totally failing immigration system with only token acknowledgement.

Thanks for answering. Separating from the immigration issue, can I ask about people that need it and can't enter the workforce for varying reasons? For example if they're disabled or in a caring role?

Sure, the genuinely unable to work need help. But the out of control surge in disability related welfare is not indicative that these are all genuinely needy people.

Thanks. Appreciate you answering. How do you separate the needy from the non needy? At what point does someone with a disability become worthy of receiving benefits? Or is there a blanket cut to all benefits which will disadvantage all people with caring responsibilities and disabilities - in which case a person with terminal cancer or a parent caring for a critically ill child will also lose out.

Every care home should have a subsidised crèche you would have young mums queuing up for a job plus better training on the job - hospitals would also benefit from a crèche and would massively reduce sick leave which would reduce importing care workers also!

How did we do it before the disability benefits ballooned to unseen levels?

Typical time to have an asylum application processed is 6 months. What do you think will happen during the wait?

It’s just not true about 24 hours don’t be ridiculous

I thought the Denmark model Labour were talking about could be worth trying. It takes time to plan and implement though.

So you also support higher costs for workers in caring positions, to cover the subsidised crèche? (I certainly do - but the average taxpayer and anti-immigrant voter doesn't seem to!)

Yes, there are a number of successful models which the UK could adopt. Unfortunately I think the lawyer class have too strong a grasp on immigration. It's no coincidence that our Prime Minister is a human rights lawyer.

However, I hope with Labour losing votes to Reform, it might give them the kick up the arse they need to get it done.

I would create a corporate matched training role scheme.

If an employer claims they can't fill a skilled role and need to recruit overseas, that employer should have to demonstrate they are also creating training roles for locals, to meet the shortages in future and not expecting to buy staff in from abroad.

I would also make skilled worker visas much more expensive. Too many companies will say "there's a shortage of x worker" when really they mean "there's a shortage of x worker at that pay point". I see this all the time in my industry. Post a role at uncompetitive pay, say you can't fill it, hire someone from a country where wages are lower who will take it for less. For companies it's worth the visa costs to keep the wages lower.

Employers need to realise, if a role isn't attracting UK applicants, maybe they need to:

• change the hours. Its not reasonable to demand 12 hour shifts etc
• consider whether they are paying competitively for the UK.

NHS training roles should not be open to international applicants until all UK trainee doctors/nurses/other health professionals have got training posts first.

Ban apprenticeship levy etc from paying for high paid senior staff to do mbas and masters & focus on training for young people.

There should be more stringent testing of the number of students coming. Its one thing attracting top talent in useful fields like STEM, another allowing poorly ranked unis to sell expensive low quality masters programs to mediocre students with poor english wanting to use study as a springboard to getting into the UK.

Agreed, very well explained.

It's always puzzled me why people on the left are so pro-immigration when so much of it (not all) is about keeping wages low.

A detention center until they do remember.

@Vinividivicii do and i suspect many people who are skeptical about low wage immigration do too. One of the reasons wages are so low is because employers have had a pipeline of low wage labour from elsewhere, so they have no incentive to treat staff well

Agree 100% and yet being in favour of 'no borders' is seen as progressive. Crazy!

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.

And how would you propose you do that when there is no international legal framework in place to do so? It's the sort meaningless BS that Nigel Farage comes out with along with 'stop the boats' and 'protect our borders'.

That reminds of Zack Polanski, leader of the Green Party’s quip about wiping bums:

On a December 2025 episode of BBC Question Time, Green Party leader Zack Polanski said, "I don't know about you, but I don't particularly want to wipe someone's bum". He made this comment while discussing the reliance on foreign nationals in the social care sector.

What a charming view he has of the immigrants he wishes to bring in in their millions.

Is he aiming for everyone to have their own personal ‘bum wiper’ per chance? *

*for the avoidance of doubt I am making a joke which highlights the eye wateringly horrendous comment from Dave which by no means reflects my views as, unlike Dave, I recognise that immigrants are human beings with a range of skills and aspirations and while I wish for firm controls in numbers and to exclude the criminal or those with anti West views/clashing cultures, I don’t see them all as ‘bum wipers’.

I think Dave has found himself promoted waaayy beyond his level of incompetence.

How about we create one?

We talk to Australia and see how they do it. It’s not that deep. It just requires the political will and may require ditching the ECHR which has been weaponised against us.

We’ve got a perfectly standard Human Rights Act of our own.

Yes, it may have been this comment, along with other dubious assertions that dampened down some support for Greens. Polanski showed contempt for immigrants, reducing them to bum-wipers, and a heartless attitude to people receiving care, reducing them to bums. He really showed his true colours.

There are several successful models that the UK could adopt to manage who enters our country. Australia and Denmark are managing this perfectly well.

All the obstacles thrown in the way of setting up a fair and sensible system are just more gaslighting and people have had enough of it. It can be done if there is the political will to do it.

Yes. He strikes me as one of those rather sad perpetual students who don’t want to leave university and enter the real world. He’s an opportunist and a talker but not very bright. also a deeply unpleasant man.

He and Hannah Spencer both have an ’emptiness’ about them that I can’t quite put my finger on. Maybe it’s a moral vacuum?