Asylum - how does it work, what would providing ‘safe routes’ look like?

[rickyrickygrimes]

I’ve been reading the illegal immigration thread 101 and have a question. Some posters propose that ‘safe routes’ should be provided, for people to apply for asylum in the UK.

What are ‘safe routes’? Where do people seeking asylum apply from - and how? Are there any rich / developed countries that have functioning, safe routes to asylum? How do we prevent them becoming a free for all?

@rickyrickygrimes The fact that sea crossing routes to your country are very limited means that they can be policed in a way that the UK or European coastline cannot. Plus (I think I’m right in saying) your country has no land borders to police, whereas Europe is the opposite

You seem to have a very different definition. When I say ‘sea crossing routes are limited’, I mean they can only come in via certain directions (I mean it’s not like they are coming up from Antarctica!). I meant it’s not like they can come from every direction. However, the ‘stretch’ needing to be monitored still leaves a distance to be monitored which is FAR FAR FAR greater than the entire circumference of the UK, and it’s in no way like the Mediterranean is huge in comparison to the area we still have to monitor. Which leads us to scratch our heads and wonder why the fuck it can’t be managed over there.

My guess is resources plus lack of partnership. We dedicate enormous resource to surveillance outside our waters to stop anyone getting into our waters. Not having a go at the UK at all there as it’s understood you are relying on third parties where they will land in order to make their way over to you, to stop them in their waters/survey outside their waters and be competent about it. It’s not like you have control over that aspect whereas we do, and it seems like the people you are relying on are either sub-par, OR not open to a partnership with you in this regard. Political partnership always relies on one party having something the other wants. Guessing countries where most boats land don’t care about putting much effort into assisting you as you are not offering/don’t have anything they want (generally $$$ or trade terms or similar).

Rules may be harsh but as I said, the majority of the voter base support this, which makes it easy. I think it also makes it a much nicer and supportive environment for the refugees we do accept from correct avenues as people in general are happy to have them and be supportive. There is always the minority with these things though, and as with everything minorities seem to be vocal versus the majority who are happy with something.

I don't think the UK can unilaterally solve the myriad issues with the global asylum and refugee system. As far as I can see, the only practical way to do it is for the UNHCR to be funded to review and decide on all asylum claims. Claims could be made anywhere, and countries like the UK sign up to take up to a certain proportion. Claimants could state where they want to go and why (like state school application preferences). Otherwise, it either becomes a free-for-all or stays as it is now, with people dying en route to their preferred destination or arriving traumatised from what they've experienced on the way.

I know there's a similar system in place now but in practice the UK hardly takes anyone from it and millions of people just sit in tent cities in impoverished countries who don't have the clout to say no.

@HoppingPavlova

as with everything minorities seem to be vocal versus the majority who are happy with something.

Are these pesky vocal minorities human rights advocates?

@HoppingPavlova
While we have a LOT of water to manage, it’s narrowed down somewhat re the routes people can realistically take in a boat from other countries they may have reached.

you’re quite right - I misinterpreted this bit. I envisaged a lot more surface area, but only a few actual routes / bigger boats ( as they are crossing more open water) and thus easier to spot / surveille compared to myriad smaller crafts making a shorter crossing and able to pull up on any stretch of sand . My mistake.

My guess is resources plus lack of partnership.

yes, this, plus a lack of willing partners for the type of agreement that Australia has made with smaller countries in the region. France is not Naura. And the bigger issue is that the UK has not acknowledged that offshore processing of asylum claims, irrespective of where it happens (except for the very few examples from UNHCR), is an acceptable strategy - probably because they would be swamped. Any politically acceptable quota would be quickly exhausted.

but offshore processing seems to be the only remotely workable solution so far 🤷‍♀️

@rickyrickygrimes Where? Rwanda was a no go because of its poor human rights, so where do you think asylum seekers should be sent?

How do you think safe routes to seeking asylum in the UK should be organised?

I don't think safe routes are feasible. Which country should be used for processing?

the problem, as I see it from what I’ve read and been told on here, is that any safe route to the UK that is created will likely be utterly swamped. Look at the millions of people currently living in refugee camps. It’s likely that many, maybe even the majority of them, might be able to make a valid claim for asylum.

so there would have to be some way of deciding which / how many asylum seekers the Uk would accept, and how to target them?

This is all pie in the sky though, unless richer countries like the UK are willing to accept a share of the world’s refugees. Nothing I see about the Uk at present implies that this is the case. The Australian system may be harsh but there is at least the possibility of achieving refugee status and legally being allowed to go to Australia. No one in a camp in Libya or Calais is able to do that at present.

Ah ok. So do you think we should continue with the status quo? Or try and ‘stop the boats / smash the gangs’?

Which country do you think we should use to process claims?

I'm referring to this comment above:

but offshore processing seems to be the only remotely workable solution so far

I have no idea, that’s why i am asking here. What do you think? Or are there other ideas out there?

what i meant was that offshore processing works to some extent in Australia because they have a conveniently located and poor Pacific island to use and a voting population that is comfortable with this as a solution. But it does apparently result in asylum being granted to those who are processed.

maybe the status quo in the UK is the least worse option, since so many applications for asylum do get granted in the end.

what other options are there?

We have several options, some worse than others. Australia breaks international law via push backs and unlimited detention. I don't believe people are treated very well in detention.

We could send people straight back to Afghanistan, Iran, Syria or Yemen. They won't have been processed so we don't know if they'd face torture or death. We'd need agreement from their home country to do that.

Other solutions are cooperation from France and better international cooperation in stopping people en route. France don't seem happy to give further help.

Longer term, investing in the environment, as people flee the consequences of global warming, and stop invading and exploiting other countries.

Invest in the HO to speed up the processing of claims as it's currently taking years.

We already take in refugees via various schemes. It would help if we invested in English classes and other support so that people can better integrate. Currently asylum seekers are sent to various places around the country where there is often little support.

Boat arrivals to Australia have zero chance of being resettled in Australia by the way. Most boats are intercepted at sea and either towed back to Indonesia or there are cases where they have paid the people smugglers to take them back.

@Maitri108 Yes I agree on the supports. I’ve been involved in these voluntary conversational English classes and I’m struck by just how much support some people will need to be able to work and live here. People who have been in refugee camps for most of their lives and don’t really have any understanding of how the western world works.

I think no matter the deterrents between conflict and climate change, more and more people will risk their lives to come to Europe for a chance of a better life. Integration and support will be critical so that we don’t end up with a segment of society that are disillusioned and always on the margins.

Also agree on speeding up the processing of claims.

I think the answers are very complicated and multifaceted but the government have resorted to these simplistic slogans to keep the population happy.

@Odras Unfortunately asylum seekers are often placed in areas unsuitable to their needs.

Several countries such as Germany have compulsory culture classes where you learn about German culture and how to integrate.

However if you have people fleeing war, who may have experienced terrible things, alone and barely able to speak the language, it's very difficult to adapt.

We are a small island with limited space and an acute housing shortage and are having problems affording supporting our own vulnerable people. We are nearly bankrupt.

With reference to the number of people that are gay in any country I understand that the science suggests it's 10% of the population. So in many countries 10% of the population would have a basis to claim asylum in the UK. And that's just one reason.

We need to concentrate on our own poor and vulnerable (currently many are frightenend due to the potential cuts in disabled benefits due to lack of money) and not continue to take in the worlds diaspora. Otherwise we ruin our own country on their behalf.

Humans have human rights of course. But every human does not have the right to move to the UK no matter what.

I don't believe the poster is talking about the UK. Unfortunately that's not how the law works when it comes to asylum seekers and refugees.

@Thoughtsonstuff But the UK isn’t taking in the world’s diaspora. If you look at all of Europe Asylum seeker applications are below average.

Do you think it’s asylum seekers fault that the UK government doesn’t care about some sections of society? I can assure you they don’t care about the most vulnerable across the board.

After world war 2 the British economy was in a difficult place but the NHS was born, welfare was expanded and large numbers of housing was built. Where there is political and public will there is a way. The government is happy to have you pointing your finger at less than a percent of the population and blaming them for poverty in the Uk. You are looking in the wrong direction.

That country isn’t going to vote it out.

Doubt it. The population boom set to come is pretty much all driven by immigration and the country cannot afford the billions of pounds needed to support their lives and those of their dependents. That's just reality.

If there therefore has to be a financial choice between taxpayers looking after the UKs homeless, disabled and vulnerable and asylum seekers from the rest of the world I'll chose our own thanks.

We literally cannot run essential services without immigration. I don't mean the small number seeking Asylum I mean the ones with visas for work such as care or picking veg.

Our natural population is shrinking. Adult women in the UK, on average, bear only 1.6 children.

Bottom line is we need them, not the other way round.

I know.we differ on this and I see what you are saying. But it's clearly unsustainable. The OBR predicts that immigrants and their dependents (assuming they bring an average of 1.38) will COST us over £80billion in their lifetimes. Immigrants become sick or disabled or old too and then it becomes a ponzi scheme that never ends just grows and grows.

We will soon have a lot of youth unemployment. We have the workers already.

The OBR predictions were much more complicated than that actually.

It notes; The precise estimate of migrants’ fiscal contribution or cost depends heavily on the methods analysts use. Regardless of the differences in methods, studies typically find that the fiscal impacts of migration represent less than 1% of GDP

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/

i think the real crime here is that taxpayer money is supplementing low wages. Why are wages so low that people can’t live on them. Who benefits from this? That’s the kind of thing we should be focused on.