So what can in practical terms fully halt illegal immigration?

[Wellwhatnowbellaboo]

Reform has won by a landslide .... immigration is probably by the look of it the biggest issue. What can realistically without breaking laws be done to really halt this with a big impact ? What would Farage actually do ? Would and should we as a country break some laws to get this done and speak to what people really feel is an issue ? (Many countries do). This is not in labour's dna so I doubt anything will come if it now ... but if you've thought about it or you have solutions what are they ?
And if you are opposed- why and what's the answer ?

Your deleted post might be one of the better and more considered posts on this thread 🤭

Oh but the vast majority do. We have something like 0.4% of the world’s refugees. Most stay close to their country of origin. Germany take far more in than us, and within Europe, we are way down the list of the numbers within each country.

They get free housing, food, phones, clothing etc given to them. Also a small allowance, which is more if food is not included in their accommodation. They won’t have any utility bills to pay.

Saying they don’t get benefits is disingenuous. All their basic needs are paid for when they are an asylum seeker, so they don’t need conventional ‘benefits’ at that point. They have zero costs.

If they get refugee status then they’re entitled to benefits. Top of the housing priority list, and entitled to housing benefit, universal credit, child benefit etc.

Indeed. Most genuine asylum seekers will go to the first place of safety. Women, children, the elderly won’t have the strength or means to travel much further.

So that’s why we get all the young and able-bodied men.

Incorrect, surely?

2024–2024 days indicates over 95% of long-term immigration into the UK is legal, with roughly 948,000–1 million people arriving through legal visa routes (work, study, or family) compared to approximately 44,000–49,000 who arrive via irregular methods, such as small boats

💯 agree

Or would you think, my female relatives are relatively safe at the moment but I am not as I am a young fit male who can easily be made to fight for whichever group is running the country down. I can maybe get to a safe place, earn some money then pay for my relatives to where I am.

There are many safe countries before you reach the UK.

No, they would rather risk their and their childrens' lives crossing to the UK in a small boat!!!

Well of course I understand them fleeing from an unsafe country. It's going from safe country to safe country and then risking their lives in a small boat to get here that I don't understand.

If they want to risk their own lives fine but to risk lives of children is incredibly selfish

Which take in the vast majority of refugees. If you suddenly needed to leave your country with nothing in your hands, no documents, where would you go and stay? Countries that you passed through where you were beaten just for being a refugee? countries where you didn’t speak the language? or if you were sold the idea that the UK were welcoming and the likelihood that you would be able to settle and work, would you try and make it there? I’m not saying it’s right, but just as we are exposed to propaganda that all young able men with dodgy backgrounds are heading our way for the benefits (ignoring the vast numbers that are taken in elsewhere), there is an equal amount of propaganda coming from those profiteering from that travel.

Detention.
Refusal of settlement by other means for anyone who has a failed asylum claim. They would need to go home and apply for a visa.
Better data sharing across government agencies. Follow the money.
Limited legal aid.
Detention, detention, detention. It is ultimately the only way to control illegal migration whilst allowing asylum claims.
That would of course not stop people coming but they would try and evade authorities and disappear. Would reduce the accommodation and legal bills but increase crime.
Migrants pick their destinations for many reasons. UK has to be made less attractive than other options if it wants to absorb fewer people. If UK acted unilaterally there would be a spike in Ireland and other EU countries.
It is complex and a full solution would turn Europe into a place many people would not tolerate so very little will be done. Desperate people will do whatever they can to migrate. And by desperate I mean desperate to make a life for themselves. Very very few are being individually persecuted.
I think migration will continue to the West and eventually end up with the dismantling of many social benefits that are currently taken for granted. Crime will rise. Religious tensions will rise. It feels inevitable.

To answer the question, keeping the Rwanda scheme would have helped. It was a deterrent and it was working. People could have been processed there and then if genuine, they could be brought here once their claim was approved.

Stricter rules would need to be introduced to decide who is genuine. Someone who has been convicted of a crime in their home country and worried about the punishment is not genuine. Someone who is pretending to be gay but then wants to bring their wife with them isn’t genuine. Someone from Albania or a country where Brits go on holiday to is not genuine.

The point is to discourage dangerous crossings in the first place. The government has run schemes to take asylum seekers directly from places in conflict in the past Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine etc. We give a lot in aid to other countries too, it’s not like we do nothing (unlike some rich countries in the world).

Their situation is different

A factcheck report - In 2022-23, 90% of social lets were allocated to UK nationals and the
remaining 10% were allocated to EEA, Swiss and Irish citizens (who would
have remained eligible under the UK connection test) or migrants in severe
housing need.

What is different?

They should have to, unless they have a legitimate reason with proof, to come to the U.K.

Many UK nationals who need housing are very recent uk nationals. About 40-50% of social housing in London goes to people born abroad.

We are told people come here on small boats (rather than staying in another closer safe country), because of the language. Because English is a global language. But many of the arrivals can’t speak it, hence the need for so many translators.

You try going to Dubai and asking for asylum, Try asking their government for housing, food and benefits. People who go and live there are on temporary work visas and have to pay for everything - healthcare, schools, the lot. If you ever need a translator, you sort it and pay for it yourself. It’s really not comparable.

Their situation is different. Those who want to live in Dubai do it through choice, often work related, and can afford to do it.
Those seeking to live in the U.K. must satisfy certain criteria

Tried to make this point time and time again, but some just won’t have it!

The asylum system is not fit for purpose in the modern world.

The sheer number of people living in hellscapes is too high for the 'good' countries to take them all in without a complete economic collapse.

So the checks need to be far more vigourous. No ID, no provable identity, no asylum. And the criteria needs to change too.

Europe needs to put it's own oxygen mask on first, or the whole plane is going down.

Plenty of U.K. citizens sleeping on the streets who are in severe housing need!

But that wasn't the Rwanda scheme. The Rwanda scheme was intended to take asylum seekers to Rwanda, process their claim there, and if found to be eligible, allow them to claim asylum in RWANDA. There was no way for them to gain asylum in the UK, one of the reasons it was so opposed.