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?

France offered the UK a chance to build an asylum processing centre near Calais in 2016, but the Tory Government turned it down. This then handed the transport of asylum seekers into the hands of criminal gangs, as we still see today.

A cynic might think that some people in the UK were making money out of this.

Develop more accessible routes to apply for asylum prior to arrival from more than 2 countries (as is the case currently).

Allow people to work while waiting on asylum applications to process.

Include demonstrated community engagement and involvement in the asylum application process to encourage people to integrate properly.

Dedicate more resource into clearing the insane backlog of applications.

Dedicate more resources into tackling the gangs involved in people smuggling and human trafficking in partnership with other countries.

Prioritise creating safe access pathways for women and children.

I cannot understand why people would welcome Afghan women only if the women abandon their sons, husbands, lovers, and male elders. It is a whole new oppression to strip someone of their family.

If you enter the country illegally, you’re detained until removal back to your home country or a safe neighbouring country if your home country is deemed unsafe.

If you’re of use to the UK, you can start a claim to remain providing you have the funds to support yourself during the processing period.

If it were feasible I'd say:

• Visa pathway for shortage skills - construction, nurses, STEM teachers etc and allow families over. This would stop a lot of small boats full of Albanian guys who are literally mostly coming to work in trade jobs and we frankly need them
• Checking people's criminal records and chucking out anyone with violent/sexual/repeated incident criminal records (obviously being mindful of dodgy governments that may fit people up)
• Enough people to check asylum claims quickly, and maybe some way of allowing claimants to be economically active, which the vast majority would like to be

Yeah except that there is no evidence that supports this. The student visa route is one of the best adhered to visas. The vast majority leave once they have finished their studies.

Edited to add I missed your outrageously racist second paragraph. Nasty. Dependents haven’t been able to come for several years either.

We don't want them women or otherwise.

What Australia does.

Well which one would you choose?

Option 1 - apply online, receive "asylum approved", use this to book train/boat/plane tickets to travel legally and safely to destination country

Option 2 - pay ££££ to traffickers to climb into the fake bottom of a lorry, where you end up stuck for days, dehydrated, maybe you die, at the very least you end up severely traumatised from the journey, only to hope you can apply for asylum upon arrival

Who is ‘we’, I’d happily welcome Afghan women.

Because claiming asylum is a fundamental human right upheld in human rights law.

This is a law that also benefits us. If our country went to shit or war tomorrow and you were personally at risk then you also benefit from having the right to seek asylum in other countries. The fact we don't currently need to exercise that right is a blessing that we're lucky to have.

Once you start undercutting human rights law then you're into very murky territory and that puts us all at risk. It's not about being soft, it's about making sure as a country we act legally in accordance with UNCHR.

Not if the men came with them.

Speak for yourself because you definitely don't speak for me.

The biggest number of illegal immigrants is not those who come on a boat but those who come on a time limited visa and never return. Digital ID is one way of tackling this so you know who shouldn’t be here and haven’t left, but the moaners think that threatens their civil liberties or some nonsense so that won’t get done.

Maybe not, but I speak for a lot of people.

I agree option 1 is preferable. But it has been claimed that it will stop illegal immigration which isn’t the case.

I think it’s more the hardline that comes with it. So, apply via the legal route and have your claim heard, arrive without doing this and be immediately removed. It would require such strictness on boarders etc etc. it is also much harder owing to brexit, and the fact that now places like France have less of a desire to work with us on this

The idea would be to create safer pathways for women who are being otherwise oppressed rather than those women being dependent on men making the journey and then going through family reunification processes. This could also empower asylum seeking women if they get here, form a support network, learn English and are able to gain employment and training before men arrive via family reunification. That puts those women who are more at risk in a stronger position overall.

So would married Afghan women have to live as widows or as divorcées or as bigamists, if their husbands cannot accompany them?

I totally understand why the men come here, by the way. They are heroes and pioneers trying to make a way in life. They may not think that women are safe or respected in the UK, and they might not want them to risk the journey without a home to go to.

This is the spirit that good men have.

The country needs immigration to sustain and boost the economy. It needs to process everyone quickly and get people working or return as applicable

I agree with all of this!

Could the demand be met, if you envisage how many would apply.

I can't see how creating legal routes for people to claim asylum would solve the issue of 'small boats' unless the legal routes were uncapped (which would be political suicide). If the legal route is capped then people would still try to get here via the current illegal routes when they are unable to get here legally. Unless, that is, we have a returns agreement with France.

The only way I see this working is that we agree a quota with the EU and we accept that many people via applications made in the EU. Then, every person who makes their way here via other routes gets returned to France. People will stop paying traffickers to get to the UK on a boat if they know they will get returned.

The flaw in my wonderful plan is that I suspect that the number of asylum seekers we would need to accept would be too high for most peoples liking.

Of course it won't stop it completely, but it will reduce human trafficking if there is a safer and more accessible option.

I also think it's really important when we're having this discussion to be clear on language- if someone arrives by small boat and claims asylum that is NOT illegal immigration and should not be classed as such. They have entered the country perfectly legally doing it in this way.

If they enter by small boat and then decide not to claim asylum that is illegal immigration.

Yes, well, the Brits invented concentration camps after all. Just dust down the concept and herd the buggers in eh 🙄