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?

The fact that the UK is a signatory to the 1951 UN Convention on Human Rights and is simply adhering to its commonly accepted usage.

The refugee/asylum laws are from a different era, an era when very large numbers of men from very different cultures were not trying to make their way to Europe. An era when a refugee had to stand on their own feet and did not expect housing and generous benefits in due course.

Europe cannot accommodate the vast numbers that wish to come here. Countries will simply become exactly like those they have left behind.

Everyone sees that the current system is not working. People have different views on how bad the abuse is and what to prioritise.

No one has any real idea of what to do. No workable plan.

So what rights do we have that the 150 countries in the world not in the ECHR including US, Canada, Japan etc. dont have?

Although I do thibk the ECHR is a red herring as it is our low quality judges, politicians etc, who are the problem - more sensible countries like Denmark are solving the problem despite being in the ECHR.

Except the countries that have dealt with it and would never go back to this chaos.

Yes I’m so envious of the Danish -common sense prevails - but they haven’t got the left/right split Gov where whatever one suggests the other opposes - immigration, dementia tax, Benefits (or their own party)

No it is. The poster was saying how brilliant immigration was for the us...well for the Apache, Sioux, Blackfoot etc it was a bloody disaster

Just take one of those. Zimbabwe... they have a massive community in South Africa...that's like next door, not 10,000 miles away. Ditto for the othes

Plus there is a well-established Kurdish community network in the UK.

Written by a multi millionaire who never ever experienced anything like that, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good story

Hold on, according to many we were complete bastard's and the rest of the world hates us.

Plus we weren't particularly nice to the kurds in our management of the middle east. Promising a Kurdish state in 1919, surprising their uprisings and chucking them into Iraq when we created that. And shafted them in gulf war 1...so what motivation would you suggest they have to come here

Reform has. Well they have a plan which none of the others has. Based on the Australian model which seems to work

I get annoyed at the argument that Britain "only" takes in 1% of the world's refugee population. We've "only" got 0.16% of the world's land. By all means, let's help people in distress (that's why we have a foreign aid project), but don't pretend we can take in everyone. Our nearest war zone is Ukraine and we did set up a refugee entry system for them. I'm struggling to see Britain's relevance to an Eritrean refugee in comparison - they are on a different continent, with a different language, history and links.

Hallelujah...I wish I could have put things that well.

The delays are in large part to the number of appeals, the fact that every application has to be vetted several times so that no objection can be made.

Remember we are unable to deport convicted peodofiles because of the complex law on the subject

So shopping around?

We have to try something revolutionary - no good building 70,000 new homes to squash more people into this tiny country - start by deporting ALL foreign criminals then beef up the deportations to safe countries of petty criminals who seem to pick pocket their way through life, get all illegal migrants in camps protected by the Army and after that a decent plan - we cannot house the whole world!

If successful asylum seekers are permitted to bring family (recent case: 18 people) then that is going to be an awful lot of council houses to be built. Also people already here having very large families - we will have to be building vast estates to house all those “entitled” to homes.

Ethnically various immigration since late 19th c has been brilliant for the US overall. The inexcusable suffering of Native Americans at the hands of the white majority and under US government policy is a separate issue going back to the 17th c.

She is fully entitled to do that by law, so what’s the problem?

We did have the rights and substantial economic advantages accruing to EU member states until we committed that monumental act of self harm known as Brexit.

One thing the EU gives its members is some equability in the distribution of asylum seekers.

You are behind. They are not.

The EU is still facing its own individual issues between countries, it’s not made migration problems go away for them either.

It's wasn't really that ethnically diverse until recently. Eg until recently c. 90% white European. There is no evidence that ethnically very diverse countries are successful (and I don't think there are any examples of ethnically diverse/culturally different cohesive societies - they tend to end up in war aka the Balkans). That is why people like me are so worried about the unprecedented experiment European countries are undertaking. Of course culturally similar but ethnically diverse countries could succeed.