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?

The biggest issue I can see is that we’re trying to apply national solutions to what is an international problem. Much of the current convention was brought in not long after WW2, and the world is not the same place it was then. The UN and its various arms are in desperate need to reform; some areas need strengthening, some need scrapping altogether or replacing in a different form. As it stands at the moment you can have a UN special rapporteur telling a developed country with good human rights that they’re dreadfully beastly for not doing something that benefits said rapporteurs personal hobby horse, while on the flip side whole UN special councils on things such as women rights are being headed by appallingly misogynistic countries just because it’s their turn. It’s a shitshow.
Back in the late 40s/early 50s economic migration was much smaller scale because travel was far more expensive and wasn’t as easy, communications likewise. Those fleeing were more likely to be whole family units or women with children, not the influx of majority young men we see now.
Tinkering at the edges won’t solve the problem, the whole international asylum system needs completely rebuilding from the bottom up and based on pure pragmatism, not the regressive ‘blood and soil’ nationalism nor the fluffy kum by yah Utopianism we’re currently plagued by.

What do you consider a 'proper channel' to apply for asylum. Do you mean use agents because we can see how that would be abused. Or do you open up 'Apply for Britain' centres in selected countries around the world? The queues would be horrendous and how do we turn people away when we are filling up the country with those who are seen as eligible?

What about those we don't want as there are European courts who would overrule our decision to reject these people.

When a person is accepted, do we then have to accept their families or is it just the one person who is eligible? What do we do when they jump in a small boat anyway because we have rejected their 'proper channel' application?

The best thing to do is make the UK less attractive for illegal immigration by stating if you come illegally you will never set foot in the UK and take them offshore.

Who is "we"?

I want people genuinely seeking asylum from war torn/difficult environments in their home countries to be able to come here to work and contribute to society.

So I agree with the OP that there should be a safe way of seeking asylum without getting on a boat. Once that exists, then I would say asylum never granted if you enter the country illegally.

My favourite thing about the ridiculousness of this argument was the recent rioting for 'women's safety' in our area was carried out by a load of local men - almost half of whom had convictions for violence against women.

All of the young asylum seeking men I work with are concerned for the welfare of women and are trying to get their female relatives out of an oppressive regime because they are trying to get away from the same extremism that creates violence towards women.

I also think it's highly ironic that you'd say you care about women when what you mean is white local women given that a few minutes ago you said you'd oppose safe passage for women and girls fleeing violence. And therein lies the rub.

This.

Apparently 406,824 student visas and 19,647 dependants just for 2025. Also around 15,000 students claimed asylum last year.

As more people are dying than being born in the UK we really do need immigration.

It helps the economy.

Anybody who does not agree with this is either racist or ill informed.

So if its hard work ... we must get immigrants to do it (which is the same idea as Zack Polanski came out with, he didn't want to wipe bums for a living).

The reason that's its not solved is because there is no will to solve it. There's a lot of vested interests in the current dysfunctional system. Employers looking for cheap labour, politicians looking for votes, unscrupulous landlords, criminals and lawyers on a never ending gravy train.

I'd like to see employing anyone staying illegally made very difficult, and ditto getting work if you're here illegally. ID cards, and temporary work permits for those claiming asylum. Punitive fines/business closures for those who employ without these, and increased funding for checks and policing of this.

Me too. That poster certainly doesn't speak for everyone.

We have nearly a million NEETs, rising unemployment, thousands of graduates and older people who are struggling to find work, skyrocketing rents and housing costs, reduced wealth per capita.

The fact you need to be on British soil means that those most vulnerable and in need of asylum can't get it. E.g. women in Afghanistan under the Taliban. It means we're completely disproportionately overwhelmed with a wave of fit young men - such an imbalance is never going to be good for society.

@stateofthem I agree our current system is ludicrous.

We already have legal immigration routes for refugees (e.g. ARP), which involve a scheme from the country that they are unsafe in.

We then have other migrant routes e.g. student visas, working visas etc...

THESE should be the only routes for immigration. Anyone entering the UK via other means should be deported or imprisoned.

Also, those on migration schemes for work/studying should speak a good level of English. Anyone applying for permanent residency should have to pass and English language test (including spouses).

(There are far too many people in the UK that have lived here a long time that speak very little English - the same should also apply to English people wanting to live abroad - learn the language!!).

As for benefits, they should be available for those who contribute to our society regardless of nationality. If you've paid in, then you should be able to claim.

A friend of mine moved to Australia a few years ago and he has T1 diabetes, so had to jump through lots of hoops to prove that his medical condition would not cost the country money. He worked in engineering so had a skill the country wanted. Australia has the right idea.

Why wouldn't boys come when I said women and children? That would also create safe passage for children who have lost their families. Did I not literally just say that the young men I work with are opposed to anti feminist regimes?

"Maybe more British men will get Afghan wives, sex workers, or cleaners if the men do not come?" Where in the fuck did I say anything like this??? And why only Afghan women? If you come to a new country seeking asylum after trauma you need structured support to get on your feet because it is difficult, that's not patronising it's fact. There is currently wholly inadequate support for people seeking asylum here and their independence is actively suppressed by the home office refusing to allow them to work and earn while they have to wait years for approval on their application.

Where is the sex segregation if men still have pathways to seek asylum? Why are you opposed to removing barriers that make it harder for solo female asylum seekers and children at risk to get here safely?

The government need to have swift processes for determining whether someone is eligible to stay in the UK or not.
If we could turn around eligibility in 3 months then the immigrants who were allowed to stay could get jobs and get on with their lives which is what the majority want.

Yes, another racket that the dysfunctional immigration system is propping up.

Let’s be honest here, that is just a vacuous fluffy soundbite and a batshit way of dealing with the issue. Have you even given it more than 15 seconds thought?
In a world without borders, how can you have a welfare state? How can you have free at the point of use healthcare? How will you prevent international organised crime? How will you prevent people trafficking? How will you enforce law?
How will you prevent exploitation? How will you collect taxes to pay for any of it?
As it currently stands a world without borders would turn into a two tier dystopian shit hole very quickly indeed.
It’ll be Hunger Games, not Star Trek.

I'm not saying we need to get immigrants to do work people don't want to do here but I'm saying that suggesting it should be British people in British jobs and off benefits is not a straightforward answer.

Also a lot of people claiming there is 'ill-will' towards immigrants is deliberately missing the point that it's the young men who rape children that people don't want and there are a lot of them. We have enough of our own rapists thanks, we don't need to add to the abuse of children. I think it's clear that if there were hotels full of Afghan women and their children the attitudes, in general, would be very different as they don't pose the same risk.

They'd also be far more likely to take up care jobs. Care jobs are disproportionately done by women. Agree with PP who said that forcing people to do care jobs is a bad idea - it will end with abuse of those being cared for. It's a difficult job and not everyone should do it.

You sound very sensible to me.

Immigrants are coming in the vast majority because of the financial assistance. Many are not genuine asylum seekers. There should be a proper immigration procedure. If you are not accepted, you cant get entry, you won’t get benefits, free health care, or be able to work, or procure a NiNo
If I want to emmigrate to Canada, for example, I have to prove I speak the language, (a test with a fee), prove my qualifications with a fee(WES), pass a medical, prove I have no criminal record. Prove I have sufficient funds to survive until I get settled & get work & a whole list of other admin. & then PAY a considerable fee to IRCC.
Then I wait … & I may or may not get accepted.

My view stop supporting wars, regime change, resource exploitation in the countries then destabilised which refugees flee from.

Educate the public …”no resource to public funds”, due process, current regrettable no right to work. The reliance of our whole country on immigration…whole sectors would collapse without it…care, NHS and more.

Asylum seekers are a small percentage of overall immigration. Asylum seekers also get less than basic rate UC to live on. Its pittance. If you think people are coming for something like £45 a week, unsuitable accommodation and not being allowed to work then you need to consider what they must have been coming from. It also costs a lot to be trafficked.

yes for them that work,most do not or they work the bare minimum and claim uc.

“I’d much rather know my mum was being cared for by an immigrant who wants to care and will offer kindness and compassion, than an English person who will be full of resentment”

Immigrants are working in care because they want to live in the UK and that is where the jobs are. Few people choose to work in care because they are kind and compassionate.

I agree about this. Unfortunately, economic migrants tend to be men. Harder for women to get out of places like Afghanistan, and generally women tend to flee when the physical costs are greater than staying. The process of coming on a small boat probably wouldn't necessarily feel safer to many, even compared to living under the persecution of the Taliban.

Let's spell it out here : most of the problem is NOT from 'immigrants' per se, it's from immigrant MEN. Men are not the default person. It should be spelt out. 'Immigrant MEN'. Immigrant WOMEN are not the problem.