Channel crossings - what is the solution?

[Snog]

Clearly asylum seekers crossing the channel in inflatable boats is a very bad thing. What is the solution though?

@sotty6 Please don't confuse Priti Patel's lies with facts. It was covered very well in this speech in the House of Lords on Friday:

@FlowerArranger

I don't have the answer, but the lack of compassion shown by some posters here is upsetting.

The problem is, this is not something that can or should be approached with compassion.

It needs a certain amount of ruthlessness and someone prepared to make tough decisions.

@Hellocatshome

They claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. On the news they keep talking about them fleeing violence and persecution which I fully understand but surely they are not being persecuted in France so they have already achieved that.

If you had lost everything and you have family in the UK and can speak English, I defy you not to try to get to the UK.

@HermioneWeasley

I honestly don’t know why it’s worth risking your life and your childrens lives to reach the uk. Even if you speak some English or have friends and family here, is it worth your life? And if you have £2k why not use that to get started in Europe.

Because £2k is not going to get anyone started anywhere and if you have lost everything, it is human nature to try to get to the only family you may have left and to a country where you speak the language. It's hardly rocket science.

@Iggly

People can claim asylum in whichever country they like. So they need to provide safe routes. And then when these people arrive, their claims are processed quickly and they are dealt with accordingly.

There are no safe routes to the UK and the asylum seeking system is so ridiculous that it takes years to get a claim through.

So the government stupidly shuts down all routes.

They’ve pulled a neat trick again, blaming gangs, making asylum seekers out to be leeches (the irony given that Priti Patel’s parents left Uganda to come here).

I can’t work out if it’s racism, snobbery or what.

It's racism

Link relevant to my pp, French language:

It describes the CADAs (Centre d'accueil de demandeurs d'asile ) that exist in France to help those that want to claim asylum in the country….

fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_d%27accueil_de_demandeurs_d%27asile_en_France

The UK already takes in very low numbers/less than our fair share of refugees compared other countries.
We should be providing safe and legal routes to claiming asylum.

Because £2k is not going to get anyone started anywhere and if you have lost everything, it is human nature to try to get to the only family you may have left and to a country where you speak the language. It's hardly rocket science.

Compassion. I bet £2K would go some way to helping the hundreds of thousands of destitute, desperate, and homeless Brits (and migrants already here).

There should be compassion for all - including the huge and increasing numbers of British (and already settled migrants) in housing insecurity or homeless.

We are in a very serious public health housing emergency. In the epicentre - London - 165,000 people are homeless. More people than the entire population of many towns. Where do we house them?

Compassion? Absolutely. But sadly it is selective. Why are many of our non migrant street homeless denied hotels and/or permanent accomodation after hotels?

And like the poster I quoted says, if you lose everything (including the ££££ it takes to get smuggled here), you want/need to be near family.

Why then has there been almost no outcry or even mention, much less compassion, for the many homeless London vulnerable families and individuals socially cleansed out of London to a completely different part of the country - somewhere they have no links to, no family, no support networks. This isn't new. It's been going on for years.

It's like the man who's big in local charities. Always the first to publicly fundraise and donate... meanwhile behind closed doors, his own family goes without the necessities...

Unless and until we deal with our devastating public health housing emergency, it is morally wrong to significantly add to it.

Want lots more people coming here? Then we must as a matter of urgency begin a massive social housing build (but not on flood risk areas, nor must we concrete over every bit of green space - so vital for farming and wildlife and nature. The lungs of Britain).

There is some extra space. Less so in the overcrowded cities. But we'll need to get pass the Refugees Welcome But Not In My Leafy Backyard Lib Dem NIMBYs to build the necessary homes. We'll also need to invest in the additional infrastructure required for a growing population - roads, trains, and buses, public services including schools, libraries, GPs, hospitals. So let's do it.

We should be providing safe and legal routes to asylum

Yes. When necessary.

However, even better. Why not provide legal and safe options to not need asylum? People don't tend to want to need it. Like pp say, they lose everything - family links, local home links, home town/village/city community links.

Minority of people with a natural wanderlust excepted, most people don't want to leave all that they know.

you had lost everything and you have family in the UK and can speak English, I defy you not to try to get to the UK.

Just pointing out, for the sake of accurate information. Many can't speak English. Of course they can learn. An old schoolfriend did just that when her family arrived in the 80s. Her GP father was keen for his children to assimilate (whilst also retaining their own culture).

Returning to 2021, translators are required for many of the recent migrants. (I'd say it's actually a good opportunity right now for English as a Foreign/Second Language teachers).

@Tealightsandd

We should be providing safe and legal routes to asylum

Yes. When necessary.

However, even better. Why not provide legal and safe options to not need asylum? People don't tend to want to need it. Like pp say, they lose everything - family links, local home links, home town/village/city community links.

Minority of people with a natural wanderlust excepted, most people don't want to leave all that they know.

Absolutely, yes - we need to stop causing wars in other countries and dismantle capitalism for everyone’s survival. But those are probably long term aims, in the short term we need to deal with the refugees there are now.

It's racism

What is?

The huge numbers of desperate people in housing insecurity and homelessness, not wanting to compete for the increasingly limited (genuinely) affordable homes?

The people smugglers exploiting certain groups and in the process making ££££ for the illegal dangerous risk of death crossings?

The Welcome In The UK But Not The Extra Required Housing In My Backyard leafy shire/rural market town/villages NIMBYs?

Or, do you mean the patronising idea that so many people are just so happy to become desperate migrants - feeling forced to leave everything they know, families, communities, often beloved home country behind?

Regardless of what you meant. If we take in an expanding population (estimated around 12+ million over the last 20 or so years), fine, but we need to provide for the extra demand. So far we haven't.

It's cheap and easy to throw around lazy accusations. Takes more effort and money to do what's actually needed. Eg. Mass social housing build.

We take in more people, we need to house them (and the homeless British) in decent affordable homes, distributed evenly across the country. And invest in improved infrastructure and public services to meet increased demand.

So let's do that.

we need to stop causing wars in other countries

Agree but our lack of involvement won't stop wars.

Interesting thinking actually. The hangover of colonial guilt. A guilt seemingly specific only to the West?

Perhaps due to a racist western centric interpretation of history and politics - the false belief that we were the only successful war mongerers and colonialists? Let's forget the Mongols, The Ottomans, and others shall we....?

Regardless a terribly unfair North Korean style attitude, isn't the answer. To punish today's generation for something their ancestors might have done. And only if they were the minority - the rich and powerful.

The vast majority had no control over what happened, or sometimes even knowledge. Many were illiterate and had no vote, and the only involvement was forced, eg. press gangs.

Unfortunately wars (and greedy desire for geographical expansion) have been going on pretty much since the start of developed human settlements.

If only they would stop. But how?

All we can do is provide, where possible, humanitarian aid. Both here in the UK and around the world - through social housing and improved infrastructure.

The asylum thing is a shambles, we know that. People who try and cheat the system and arrive without going through the process should simply not be allowed to land and be deported if they do make it here. If they are prepared to ignore rules and law to get here we do not want them anyway.

@GucciBear

The asylum thing is a shambles, we know that. People who try and cheat the system and arrive without going through the process should simply not be allowed to land and be deported if they do make it here. If they are prepared to ignore rules and law to get here we do not want them anyway.

How is arriving “cheating the process”

We take in more people, we need to house them (and the homeless British) in decent affordable homes, distributed evenly across the country. And invest in improved infrastructure and public services to meet increased demand.

So let's do that.

Brilliant, brilliant Tealights - thanks for that errrrrrrrrr, just one thing - who's coughing up the money for all this - oh, of course, the rich - they're the answer to EVERYTHING on MN.

NellieBertram - cheating the system because they are not going through immigration!!! I have no quarrel with anyone who comes in through the proper channels. The ones who arrive unofficially and without support will be a drain on our hard hit services for ever and a day.

@Tealightsandd

It's racism

What is?

The huge numbers of desperate people in housing insecurity and homelessness, not wanting to compete for the increasingly limited (genuinely) affordable homes?

The people smugglers exploiting certain groups and in the process making ££££ for the illegal dangerous risk of death crossings?

The Welcome In The UK But Not The Extra Required Housing In My Backyard leafy shire/rural market town/villages NIMBYs?

Or, do you mean the patronising idea that so many people are just so happy to become desperate migrants - feeling forced to leave everything they know, families, communities, often beloved home country behind?

Regardless of what you meant. If we take in an expanding population (estimated around 12+ million over the last 20 or so years), fine, but we need to provide for the extra demand. So far we haven't.

It's cheap and easy to throw around lazy accusations. Takes more effort and money to do what's actually needed. Eg. Mass social housing build.

We take in more people, we need to house them (and the homeless British) in decent affordable homes, distributed evenly across the country. And invest in improved infrastructure and public services to meet increased demand.

So let's do that.

You've gone the full Angela Merkel there.

"Wir schaffen dass"

Only read the first page but surprised at some of the attitudes. Being an island we won't ever be the first "safe" country asylum seekers reach but we can't conclude that absolves the UK from any responsibility!
There would be a huge burden (there still is) on Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey etc which may be the first country they reach....but that doesn't mean, for example, Austria, Switzerland, UK etc can shrug and say "not our problem". Its a global problem that we in the UK are contributing to it.
Asylum seekers risking their lives and arriving on dinghies is not the answer but neither is saying the uk is effectively closed because we are not the first safe country.

Over population must figure in this. People having many children who have little chance of providing for themselves. This is global.
In western countries I think the birth rate is falling but not elsewhere.

[quote DuncinToffee]Safe and legal routes to the UK

www.amnesty.org.uk/files/2021-01/Amnesty%20International%20UK%20-%20Safe%20and%20Legal%20Routes%20Briefing_0.pdf?WhIQYO9iEgCBfpjkGelCevE0CagCsEHD=[/quote]
Thanks for the link to this document, DuncinToffee. It was informative. Sorry for not being able to respond sooner.

There seems to be a conflation of terms in the mainstream news and social media - not sure if it's deliberate or just sloppiness. Probably both.

I'm going to make more of an effort to use the correct terminology now that I understand it better. The use of 'migrants' can be confusing and misleading. The current issue is regarding asylum seekers. I hadn't realised that they are termed as refugees only when their application for asylum is approved.

So it looks like at the moment, there isn't a visa / immigration category for asylum seekers to apply to travel to the UK. I think this should be rectified immediately because then there's no excuse for people to make risky trips. I don't understand why the UK government won't do this. I'm no expert but surely it would actually help rather than hinder their political stance / policies.

If there's a visa category for asylum seekers, it immediately makes anyone travelling across the channel using illegal means, and they can be sent back to their country of origin?

If the UK government want to take a tough stance, they can let the boats land on UK soil, take the biometric data of the people who have arrived, and then send them back to the country of origin. And the penalty is if they subsequently apply for the asylum visa, they can be denied for a period of time - I think it's usually 10 years. There's a similar process for economic migrants - if you deliberately entered using the wrong visa then the visa is revoked and also you can't apply for any other type for up to 10 years. It is a deterrent to stop people from gaming the system, though it still happens.

Ultimately, the UK government need to get their finger out and properly invest in public services like the Border and Immigration department. Applications should be processed quickly by well trained staff and consistent asylum criteria. Having an actual visa category for asylum seekers means there can also be a limit to the numbers granted each year 3k, 5k etc.

It's a complex area, but there's no reason the UK government can't put in place sensible, humane but tough policies to show they are strong on immigration if that's what they want to demonstrate to their voters.

But really the best solution is working on negating the need for migration in the first place. The majority of people don't actually want to flee their homes, their families, their communities. Migrating out of desperation - including economic - is very different to having a wanderlust.

Yes, this is something that is never talked about. Even economic migrants don't come to the UK out of the goodness of their hearts or for a laugh. They leave family and friends behind and hope to be able to send some of their earnings back. If their own countries were just as prosperous or socially progressive, then they would probably have never left in the first place.

It's called the brain drain and smart, skilled workers leave developing countries and end up enriching the West even further. The most precious asset of any country is its people so it's actually pretty selfish to expect immigrants to enrich your own country while impoverishing their own - and feeling very good about yourself in the process.

@Hellocatshome

They claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. On the news they keep talking about them fleeing violence and persecution which I fully understand but surely they are not being persecuted in France so they have already achieved that.

This ^^

As has been explained many times on this thread and others, there is no obligation for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, although many in fact do.

And France is not the first safe country they reach anyway.

www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/information/refugee-asylum-facts/the-truth-about-asylum/