To ask if you think the prime minister has a democratic duty to house asylum seekers in middle class areas

[CurdinHenry]

By which I mean, would most voters support this as opposed to a change in policy to refuse in greater numbers? I honestly can't tell what "the majority" actually wants. I would prefer fewer having seen how things went in Germany thanks to the Merkel wave but I am willing to believe I'm a backwards old boomer and a majority would be more welcoming.

They (UK governments) tend to say they have no choice due to the echr but this isn't true. There are a lot of operational choices they could make (eg sometimes when people are denied entry at the border they are actually allowed into the country for a few days and instructed to report back to the airport when it's time for the removal flight).

This is not a difficult problem at all. Line our coastline with Navy ships, every single person lifted into a large boat and taken back to France. Army on the beaches to lift anyone who might make a swim for it. After a few weeks no one would even try to cross. Australia did this and the boats stopped within a week.

As soon as you let people in, you have a problem as to what to do with them. Cut it off at the knees and save yourself that headache.

These are young men coming from countries where rape isn't a crime, and it's acceptable to stone your wife to death if she's unfaithful. There are no women, so they haven't had sex for ages, and where they are from you don't see women in the street. Then we place these horn dogs into our communities where young women are wandering around with flesh on show (and rightly so), and we wonder why we have an increase in sexual assaults and rapes. DOH! Could have predicted that without a crystal ball - why didn't the Government see this coming?

That's not to mention whether these men might plan a terrorist attack. Who really knows why they are here?

Add to this, they aren't allowed to work, so there's no structure, they can go to bed at 4am, and rise at noon - then you wonder why there's hoards of men hanging around parks at night.

ALL of this is so utterly PREDICTABLE. If I was the Prime Minister, not one of them would be here. NOT ONE.

Net migration reached record levels after Brexit!

Then EU immigrants from places like Poland and Romania were replaced with those from parts of the Middle East that are statistically more likely to pose a domestic terrorism threat.

Who in the EU manages returns best? Possibly Denmark. They invest a lot of money in their system and it’s strict. But they also don’t work in isolation. Effective migration management requires cooperation between countries, especially on intelligence sharing, return agreements, asylum processing, and tackling people smuggling networks.

Germany carries out a large number of returns - in part because it processes a large number of asylum cases. But they also have difficulties removing people whose countries of origin refuse to cooperate. Cooperation is essential.

But it does keep you in a job Hazel! Remember to be doubleplusgood at all times.

We never got a proper Brexit. "Maybe May" had interests in Europe and was a Remoaner.
We took the best deal we could which was pretty rubbish.

I believe Italy proposed expelling Spain from Schengen because Sanchez is doing nothing to stop the flow of migrants into Ceuta and they don't want to have to deal with the knock on consequences.

😆 been there, been through that shit. Fortunately, was able to take early retirement. The industry I was in would have been a nightmare post October 7th.

So what would the deal look like? Spell it out for us.

I'll do that when I get the same pay as David Davis got as Brexit negotiator !

Of course it’s a difficult problem! There is no simple solution that governments have somehow overlooked.

Australia is not a valid comparison - it’s an island thousands of miles from the source countries of most asylum seekers. The UK is 20 miles from France and bound by different legal arrangements. Australia’s policy also involved offshore detention centres and agreements with third countries, not just using naval vessels to take people back.

Second, the navy cannot just pick people up and deposit them in France. France would have to agree to accept them.

Third, it’s racist to treat all young male migrants as potential rapists or terrorists. Most people arriving by small boat never commit an offence. Security services assess individuals based on evidence and intelligence, not stereotypes.

Fourth, if the concern is crime and social problems, allowing people to sit for months in legal limbo with no work is problematic. Faster asylum decisions, rapid removal of those with no right to stay, and quicker employment for those accepted are proposed precisely because they reduce the problems you’re describing.

Net migration is work visas not asylum process.

This thread is focusing on the asylum process. Brexit or not isn’t relevant for Danish system either.

The countries which say no and are in the EU include Hungary and Poland and that’s due to dismissing EU regulation.

The Australian coast line where people crossed was close enough to do so. It’s not that different in distance.

Speaking of Denmark and migration, there's some fairly stark stats about which countries produce migrants that are economic contributers, and which are not:

https://x.com/Geiger_Capital/status/2088320585696678388

Third, it’s racist to treat all young male migrants as potential rapists or terrorists. Most people arriving by small boat never commit an offence. Security services assess individuals based on evidence and intelligence, not stereotypes.

I don't care, I'd rather be safe.

Just like I know not all men are rapists, but I have to assume that any strange man is a potential threat.

@Bikenutzhow can the men arriving be vetted? How would you know who poses a risk?

I’m talking about asylum claims. Small-boat crossings were low before Brexit, rose sharply during the early 2020s, and then became the dominant irregular entry route into the UK.

Denmark is relevant precisely because it challenges the idea that EU membership automatically prevents effective border or asylum management.

And Poland is an interesting example for a different reason. Along with Finland, they have strengthened borders with Belarus and Russia because they see irregular migration there through a warfare lens, rather than purely as an immigration issue.

Poland has also absorbed very large numbers of Ukrainians fleeing the Russian invasion, demonstrating that a country can simultaneously accept large numbers of foreigners fleeing war whilst maintaining a hard border against irregular entry from another direction.

OFGS. How many times does this need to be explained before it sinks in?
Spain, Italy, Germany, France are all EU members. All signed up to the DA. ALL receive high numbers of migrants from Africa and the ME who arrive on small boats.
Its nothing to do with Brexit!

Please explain why you think the people crossing the channel today would not be arriving if we had voted to remain? We would have free movement and boat crossings.

We did not actively 'replace' Polish builders with African Deliveroo drivers. The standard of living is better in Poland so I don't blame them for leaving.

The answer is implied in my response. Security services are, of course, involved. They’re part of the wider risk-management approach applied to everyone entering the UK, whether they are tourists, business travellers, workers or asylum seekers.

They make use of intelligence and law-enforcement cooperation with international partners. However, following Brexit, the UK lost direct access to some important EU databases and policing tools which previously provided real-time alerts on wanted persons and security concerns across Europe.

No you’re connecting numbers by a type of entry for no reason.

We had very high asylum claims in 2002 pre Brexit.

In 2002, the UK received 84,130 main asylum applications (or around 103,000 to 111,000 when including dependents).

Other countries still on the EU have high arrivals, you can see that?

Most men of any origin don't rape, but all men should nonetheless be considered potential rapists. Annoyingly, rapists look just like non-rapists, so you can't just tell by looking. And I don't think I'm alone in thinking it's better to be too cautious and unfairly discriminate against a man, than not cautious enough and let women and girls be raped and murdered. Hence why women aren't keen on them in female spaces. There has obviously been a huge fight against males in female toilets, though we're statistically vastly more likely to be attacked by an illegal immigrant than by a man in the loo. I absolutely don't think men should be allowed in female spaces, but am a bit bewildered why we're not anything like as animated by the risk of immigrant males as we are by homegrown males in dresses.

Are you certain on this? How do the security services check a male from Sudan or Afghanistan, which state records from the Taliban for example are shared with them?

Third, it’s racist to treat all young male migrants as potential rapists or terrorists. Most people arriving by small boat never commit an offence. Security services assess individuals based on evidence and intelligence, not stereotypes

And there we have it! ☝You're so scared to be called a racist, that you would throw our own women and girls under the bus. If some are raped and attacked, at least we can't be called racist.

SOFT.

Brexit didn’t create irregular migration. 😂 It’s difficult to argue that it has delivered the border-control outcomes that many voters were promised.

Brexit removed mechanisms that would have helped reduce small boat crossings. And useful things like access to law-enforcement tools and the system for returning asylum seekers to EU countries through which they had travelled.

As for whether the same people would still be coming if we’d remained in the EU, nobody can know. Poland’s economy has grown significantly and the environment for immigrants in the UK became more hostile post Brexit, so many Poles in the UK chose to return home or move elsewhere.

The UK government need to give money to the authorities in Afghanistan so that anyone who rocks up on these shores ends up in Bagram. The boats will soon start heading in the opposite direction.

I think there are some assumptions below that are incorrect. Perhaps @Bikenutzwill see the issue after this thread.

If there’s a violent crime in Sudan or Afghanistan, it’s unlikely the state will know, care or record it, nor share. That male can travel through countries without asking for asylum anywhere else and then arrive in the U.K.

There is no way anyone would know what has been committed. They can also arrive in Belfast, Germany, France, anywhere we’ve seen violent crimes perpetrated.

Is anyone sure they’re ok with that?

That’s hilarious - what have figures from 2002 got to do with it? Irrelevant.