Stopping the boats is easy...

[titbumwillypoo]

All we have to do is abandon the ECHR, the Refugee Convention, the UN, the G7, NATO and the WTO. Then we can break maritime law and start sinking the boats. Obviously we'd have to proscribe the RNLI and change the job description of the coast guard to encourage people who want to sink boats to sign up. The fishermen will be fine.
Once we start with this deterrent we can start kicking out other undesirables. I'd start with the students. Coming over here using our universities as a gateway to benefits street. So we ban them, no more student visas. We might see a few universities close but no great loss, you learn more in the school of life.
After that take away access to ALL benefits for anyone not born here. Don't care if you've always worked and paid your taxes you're not ENGERLISH so less Dr Khalid more Dr Callum.
Obviously once we start making Britain Great again there may be a couple of teensy issues. Food might cost a lot more because the lefty EU might not want to trade with a nation that wants to isolate itself and kill innocent people. It'll be fine because there will be 100% employment because instead of benefits you'll have to do your 60 hours on the food farm to earn your pound credits.
Family will be legally obliged to look after any living relative as there won't be anyone left to do it because we deported them all. And obviously the NHS was full of loony lefties who went round caring for people instead of focusing on what really mattered, which is profit.
They're just a couple of the benefits of stopping the boats, because who cares about the bigger picture or unintended consequences eh?
Giving up our place on the world stage is a small price to pay for stopping a handful of people coming from countries we benefited from or bombed isn't it?

@Brazillas : The US has not overall been a low tax economy. The overall individual tax burden is slightly, but only slightly, lower. Breaking it out is complex and depends on which state you live in. On top of that, individuals and families pay hundreds to thousands of dollars per month for health insurance.

I lived there for over 15 years.

Corporate tax rates are similar across the two countries but the US has a much larger corporate base.

During the pandemic years Trump had not succeeded in stifling immigration. America is historically a proud nation of immigrants.

This century, roughly 40% of American Nobel laureates in the sciences and medicine have been immigrants, whereas roughly 15% of the population are immigrants. These laureates are a symbol, of course, but many Americans understand that immigrants are on the whole hard workers with much to contribute. That’s true in the UK as well, as I documented above.

At the moment the US economy, inclyding my American pension, is being kept afloat with smoke and mirrors.

Apologies for accidentally quoting you above, @EasternStandard

I believe offshore asylum applications would mainly be made online, yes. I only know a little bit about this because it is an example of an issue where citizens of a hostile nation may need a secure way to communicate with the British government. This type of communication is a cybersecurity issue, particularly when dealing with totalitarian regimes.

Tbf what you’re describing is closer to the Australian system as you are unable to apply from the shore. It disqualifies you from entry if you do that.

So we could do similar but it takes hardline measures to get round international laws.

So your argument is that if a nurse pays say, £100,000 tax in their lifetime, then a trillionaire paying £110,000 in their lifetime is genuinely making a bigger contribution to society?
Well, that’s a first, I must say. Can’t fault the logic though.

I think it puts genuine adylum seekers in danger.

Hang on aren’t you saying it’s what you’d prefer? Online applications from o/s?

Sounds doable to me- they all have phones, and it would mean they don’t desert their wives and children, or risk their own lives in boats

👍

But the us doesn't have a non contributory health system thats creaking at the seems. Its also not one of the most densely populated places in the world. Its does have a massive crime problem. And the immigrants have formed a large number of organised crime outfits.

But most of all, the thing that you are really really really not seeing in your argument is what actually happened to the Native Americans

The world has many people living in appalling conditions but we cannot help them all and cannot bring/allow them all here.

You need to get a dose of reality.

No. I am aware it is being discussed as an option in certain circles. I acknowledge it may stop the boats, though as I am unaware what numbers we keep on the percentage of those who arrive by boat and follow up by applying for asylum, this is unclear.

It has great logistical advantages for HMG. If secure - one hell of a caveat - it is easier for asylum seekers with time on their side. Incomplete documentation, often due to misunderstanding, is a major source of rejected asylum claims.

But the bottom line is that some number of those who most need asylum would very likely be put in mortal danger, through human misuse of such a system at both ends and through its penetration.

Of course I know what inexcusably happened to the Native Americans. I lived there for 15 years. Appalling, but of little relevance to this discussion.

The US heath care system could more accurately said to be bursting at the seams.

Do you mean it might be proposed by Labour? Or just academic / other circles

It has problems as the point of fleeing is to leave the danger not wait (if people see some claims as legitimate if not all) but moreover you’d need to stop shore arrivals.

And then you get into ignoring or opting out of international law. Or it can be done as Aus did but we’d have to leave the ECHR.

The UK accepts less than 1% of the world's total refugees. The vast majority go to other developing countries.

What happened to the native Americans?

If a homeless person broke into your house and refused to leave and "claimed asylum" would you be forced to cafe for them?

If people were allowed to claim asylum from outside the UK, then they wouldn't need to "break in" in the first place.

You’d need to stop people claiming on shore or you’ll get both. Unless you can say yes to everyone who applies and meets the criteria.

Which would be extremely high in number.

They still would, because most, imo, of those rocking up are not genuinely in need of asylum, but even those whose claims fail don't seem to actually get deported, so it's well worth the effort.

It has been mooted in academic/think tank circles as far as I am aware. I have no special political insight but would be surprised if Labour brought it up for the reason you mention.

Don't allow them. We don't want them here.

No country in the world has a blanket refusal on asylum seekers. Even those that did not sign the 1951 UN Convention on Human Rights allow the UN high Commission of Refugees to manage small refugee programmes for them, or handle asylum cases on an ad hoc basis.

Australia uses humanitarian visas mostly. It’s still part of the convention. Onshore applications are happening via temporary stays but it looks like all parties will try to get it down and use visas as the way to do it.

We may have varied opinions on that. I think it misses the point.

We agree on the need to distinguish genuine asylum seekers. Most of the anger in the UK is directed at those believed to be economic migrants who arrive irregularly and are supported (badly) at the state’s expense while their claims are decided.

My view is that the miserable support for asylum seekers is not the draw: life in the UK is. If those who are economic migrants were prevented from claiming asylum, I think they would continue to arrive irregularly and skip over the claims bit, simply disappearing into the underground economy.

Controlling borders is the issue.