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 ?

There’s going to have to be a multifaceted approach. Firstly asylum should only be temporary. Even the BBC has recognised the industry around falsifying information around claims, claiming you’re fleeing because you’re gay. If that person is subsequently shown to be in a heterosexual relationship then that person should have their asylum status retracted. We shouldn’t be granting asylum based on political opinion or religion, both those things are life style choices.

We need to be more insistent on integration and less tolerant of bending over backwards to accommodate other cultures. If you live in Britain, you should abide by British norms and values. We shouldn’t allow the abhorrent slaughter rituals of religions. Our educational system should be one founded on British pride.

All public signs should be in English or Gaelic or Welsh or Cornish, not Urdu etc. same with leaflets, election speeches etc.

We shouldn’t be allowing the takeover of Trafalgar square for religious rituals other than those linked to our national identity, ie Christian or Celtic Pagan.

There should be zero support for any religious based laws, no Sharia courts should be allowed etc. We shouldn’t have teachers in hiding because they criticised a land grabbing caravan trader who lived 1500 years ago. Anyone involved in the reason he is in hiding should be prosecuted.

If we started insisting that everyone who lived here was fully integrated into the UK then I suspect far fewer people would want to come.

Poland is a good basis for this.

Getting in a boat is not the safest option. Staying in a safe country where they are already, is.

Good old common sense I think.

id bet my life savings that the 5 Turkish barbers, 4 car washes and 5 nail bars in our tiny town our not staffed with people with the correct documents to work in the UK.

But factually, they are not here illegally. It is perfectly legal to claim asylum. The government could change the rules to allow asylum seekers to work, but currently they can't, so the government is obliged to feed and house them as it doesn't allow them to earn money feed and house themselves. The government could also speed up the process so that they don't have to wait so long for their claims to be heard.

Why does it make you feel sick?

Some countries have colonial past, exported themselves to other cultures/religion countries and now have to deal with people from those regions wanting to come and bring their culture with them.

Some countries never had colonies and are more culturally and ethnically homogenous. It's not automatically a bad thing. Their policy is, that if you want to come and live there, you should aim for blending in with local lifestyle - and mosques are a tool of keeping the people coming from Muslim countries religiously and culturally segregated.

In my country (similar to Poland), Muslims have places to pray (often an ecumenical church has time slots for different minority religions), but building big mosques is not welcome, because it would mean building cultural ecosystems and isolation within a religious group.

It works well - imams cather for their religious needs, but don't overstep the legal boundaries - no imam would administer a Nikah here (without state registered marriage first), we don't have Sharia courts and our teachers don't have to hide for talking about Charlie Hebdo or images of different religious characters.

Withdraw all legal aid for asylum seekers. Withdraw from whatever international agreements we need to to ship them elsewhere. Stop reunification. Spot check uber eats etc drivers and if not here legally and driving legally send them back.

It also protects you and your children. I am genuinely astounded that people would rather give up their own human rights than have a refugee protectef.

Definitely benefiting the French, and does nothing to lessen immigration, unless the U.K. is good at granting asylum only to those likely to be of benefit to us, in which case those seeking asylum should be presenting their documentation.

And how can they speed up the process when they don’t have their documents and proof of their identity?

Which part is incorrect?

Rejoining the EU would be a good start.

Increasing investment in the civil service departments that deal with all aspects of immigration and people who are here illegally.

I imagine this is usually anathema to the people who want fewer immigrants/ vote Reform. Eg Reform want to roll back the civil service, not enlarge it.

That won't stop the boats.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/people-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/

The above is a report by the Migration Observatory of Oxford University. Read the section under the heading ‘why do people cross the Channel by small boat?’. It starts with this:

“There is limited evidence on why Channel migrants decide to come to the UK. Several factors appear to play a role in their decision, such as the presence of friends and family members in the UK. The most common nationalities crossing the Channel have larger diaspora populations in the UK rather than in France. Other reasons include language and cultural links to the UK, perceptions of the UK as safe and welcoming, as well as negative experiences in other European countries.”

I don't work for the home office, but a brief search tells me they do this:

When someone claims asylum in the UK without passports or identity papers, the authorities do not automatically reject the claim. Many refugees arrive without documents for legitimate reasons — documents may have been confiscated, destroyed, lost during flight, or impossible to obtain safely.

Instead, the Home Office tries to assess whether the person’s account is credible using a combination of interviews, evidence, background checks, and consistency testing.

Typical process:

1. Screening interview

Soon after arrival, the person is asked:

• name, nationality, date of birth,
• route travelled,
• family members,
• why they came to the UK,
• whether they have documents.

Officials also take:

• fingerprints,
• photographs,
• biometric data.

The fingerprints are checked against UK and European databases to see whether the person previously claimed asylum elsewhere or used another identity.

2. Substantive asylum interview

Later, there is a detailed interview about:

• what happened in the home country,
• fears of persecution,
• political/religious/ethnic background,
• timeline of events,
• travel route.

Decision-makers look heavily at:

• internal consistency,
• whether the story changes over time,
• whether details fit known country conditions,
• whether the account sounds plausible in light of independent evidence.

3. Country evidence

The Home Office compares the claim against:

• human-rights reports,
• news reporting,
• intelligence,
• expert assessments,
• country policy and information notes.

For example, if someone claims persecution by a militia in a particular region, officials compare the account with known conditions there.

4. Corroborating evidence

Even without passports, applicants may provide:

• phone records,
• social media,
• photos/videos,
• medical reports,
• witness statements,
• party membership cards,
• arrest warrants,
• school/work documents,
• language analysis.

Sometimes linguistic experts assess accent/dialect to estimate regional origin.

5. Credibility assessment

UK law allows decision-makers to consider lack of documents as a factor affecting credibility if they think the person could reasonably have produced them. But absence of papers alone is not supposed to determine the outcome.

Officials also look at:

• whether the person claimed asylum promptly,
• whether they used false identities,
• whether they destroyed documents deliberately,
• inconsistencies between interviews.

6. Standard of proof

The asylum standard is lower than in criminal law. The claimant does not have to prove everything “beyond reasonable doubt.” The question is broadly whether there is a “reasonable degree of likelihood” they would face persecution or serious harm if returned.

7. Possible outcomes

The claim may result in:

• refugee status,
• humanitarian protection,
• refusal with appeal rights,
• detention/removal proceedings.

Some claims are refused mainly because officials conclude the account is not credible rather than because documentary proof is absent.

I think we should stop pandering to racists who pretend immigration is the problem, rather than Brexit and years of under investment in public services and infrastructure. Reform have gained seats in Scotland where immigration the opposite of a problem - we are a predominantly white, aging demographic. We need immigrants, but actually have very few. That doesn't stop the slack jawed racists voting Reform. I wish a party other than SNP had the guts to push back on the racists instead of pandering by agreed with the endless demands to 'stop the boats'.

No, it would increase them!

It might be something to do with Britain invading and occupying their homeland and telling them that they are subjects of the British Empire?
They’re just coming home.

No but it would.make it much harder to work here illegally, and so reduce the pull factor.

People in the UK without a legal right to be here (unauthorised migrants) are generally ineligible for mainstream benefits, public funds, or social housing. They are legally excluded from working and accessing public support, although limited assistance may be provided by local authorities in specific circumstances (e.g., child welfare)

I have the same questions OP. Given the current volume of immigrants already here, the government can’t just get rid of them? So is it a case of dealing with the high numbers we already have as a non negotiable, just not allowing many more in? Basically leaves us in the same position we’re in.

This policies don’t exist in isolation. If you’re going to use countries like Poland as an example it’s helpful not to cherry pick. Look at all their laws. Restrictions on abortion, freedom of assembly etc. These things tend to come as a package.

Allowing the UK’s tiny amount of illegal immigration, none of whom even qualify for benefits unless they’re refugees, to determine this election was like allowing the US elections to be determined by whoever promised to build a “border wall”…. Oh wait, fuck, that IS what the US did! 😂 Classic case of those who believe in nothing will fall for anything.

I hate to say it but it’s true. Our local hotel has asylum seekers, lots of “brown” people. Mostly younger men. Sometimes families. Sometimes you see them in the local parks in the summer playing football which is nice, sometimes not. A few are delivery drivers. The one thing I would say which is vital is that they don’t tend to mix with locals. Though I sort of see why. They gets lots of support (including from me) from the local community.

If they’re going through all that for each one no wonder it’s taking forever! Wonder if they just give them the benefit of the doubt!

So they’re just like the British “ex-pats” in Spain, Turkey, Cyprus and the Middle East?