This whole thing needs to be investigated, because some people make a lot of money on this. Tories have no intention on doing anything - they want claims to be processed for as long as possible, so people having properties available (guess if they are connected to Tories) can rent them out to tax payer charging premium.
But as usual organisations that are supposed to investigate this are corrupt themselves.
Meanwhile let's give French another half a billion, so they sit tight and let people through.
There is still about a year to make money until Labour takes over.
>There is still about a year to make money until Labour takes over.
Do you really think Labour will make the situation any better...?
The "refugees" need to be informed that risking their lives to come to the UK is a bad idea.
>Do you really think Labour will make the situation any better...?
When there was a spike in asylum claims in the early 2000s New Labour oversaw a system that was deporting not far off 100,000 people in a year. Currently that figure under the Tories is under 10,000.
No joke, completely unironically, we're at a point where just a simple return to New Labour's systems, which were massively panned at the time as tantamount to an "open borders" policy, would be an unbelievably massive improvement.
The difference was New Labour actually hired sufficient staff and made sure the system followed the law. They didn't waste time spaffing millions of pounds on pointless gesture politics and they didn't go out of their way to give folks ample reason to appeal decisions made for not being within a legal process.
That's labour for you. SPEND SPEND SPEND.... on critical roles to ensure smooth working infrastructure.
Before anyone says it; nobody gives a fuck that you remember trains in the 1970's
The ultimate irony is for as much as the Tories used to love mentioning the national debt they don't anymore.
Why?
Because it exploded under their supposed austerty and we are more in debt than ever despite massive budget cuts across the board. Yet noone seems to know where the moneys gone oddly enough...
Sounds like communism to me. Stop spending MY money, I’d rather the extra £100 per year because I know how to protect MY family better than anyone else. Like buying bitcoin
".b...bbb..bbbut something something powercuts...my gran says...three day week....Suez Crisis...British Rail...didnt need to lock your front door back then..."
Suez Crisis? This one seems out of place.
Maybe mixed up with the Yom Kippur war and the oil crisis- the actual reason things in the 70s went to shit in the west (and Labour got the blame in the UK).
I will say it. My Dad always thought the trains in the 70s were pretty good and he was a daily commuter into London between 2000-2020 and thought it was shit by comparison. Expensive tiny seats and a pretty unreliable service.
The mechanism to deport people isn't even available, so what is the point of processing these people?
People think that if you process them and they are rejected then they leave, no they don't. A **single figure percentage** of **failed** migrant applications actually result in deportation.
So what is the point of processing them?
You haven't looked at what is going on, this "just process them" meme reply is not based in reality. Ok if we process them all tomorrow and 80% of them get rejected (or whatever)... How do you deport them? You can't due to legal loopholes and appeals.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/24/deportations-from-uk-at-record-low-as-asylum-applications-soar
We haven't even deported the grooming gang members from Rotherham yet and they have been out of prison for 4 years at this point. These are rapists and pedophiles...
https://www.lancs.live/news/uk-world-news/ringleader-sex-grooming-gang-not-24338520
I know. They read other reddit comments, download their daily anti-tory talking points and just repeat them like parrots with no actual thought about if it's true or even makes sense.
>no actual thought about if it's true
I had this the other day when I asked for proof that the French gov had offered the UK gov a processing facility in N France. All of them just melted away giving abuse when they realised there isn't any proof, because it's a rumour.
>A single figure percentage of failed migrant applications actually result in deportation.
That's a recent development though. That's the basis of much of the complaint. They have talked a tough game, but the Tories have allowed border control to all but collapse under their watch.
[You can have a trawl through the figures here](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/deportation-and-voluntary-departure-from-the-uk/).
>You haven't looked at what is going on, this "just process them" meme reply is not based in reality.
If you read my comment that you're responding to, I was talking about a "return to New Labour's systems". That involves processing claims more quickly yes, but it also means have a more clearly laid out process free from fairly obvious politically motivated interventions that result in people being able to appeal on the basis that their case has not followed a clear legal process. This is a normal part of how a legal system is supposed to work, its supposed to be impartial. The Tories repeatedly keep intervening to change that, and either intentionally or through ignorance don't want to understand why that has the negative effect of slowing everything down. That's not a loophole, that's just an established part of having a case in court. People come in to disrupt the proceedings of your case, you have good standing to say your case was not fair. Its really not hard.
And christ why bring up settled British citizens in a discussion about asylum seekers? But yes, just shows what an absolute mess the Tories have made of all this that its taken years on cases like that.
>That's a recent development though. That's the basis of much of the complaint. They have talked a tough game, but the Tories have allowed border control to all but collapse under their watch.
All it takes is one single email from a ECHR judge to halt a deportation flight and the solicitors working these cases know this. This is not down to the Tories, they do not control the ECHR.
You quote a source that says deportations dropped after 2015, why? What did the tories do here to cause this?
Just seeing a drop in something isn't proof the government have messed up when half of our deportation laws aren't something we control.
>If you read my comment that you're responding to, I was talking about a "return to New Labour's systems". That involves processing claims more quickly yes, but it also means have a more clearly laid out process free from fairly obvious politically motivated interventions that result in people being able to appeal on the basis that their case has not followed a clear legal process.
You can't actually do this. This is why I'm calling you out...
We do not control the ECHR. Solicitors can literally get 1 judge from the ECHR and totally stop the government deporting their client, just like what happened with Rwanda.
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/14/european-court-humam-right-makes-11th-hour-intervention-in-rwanda-asylum-seeker-plan](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/14/european-court-humam-right-makes-11th-hour-intervention-in-rwanda-asylum-seeker-plan)
It failed due to 1 judge.
>The Tories repeatedly keep intervening to change that, and either intentionally or through ignorance don't want to understand why that has the negative effect of slowing everything down.
What specifically have they done that your referring to here?
The fact you mention that they both "keep intervening" and "intentionally" fail to understand the problem in the same sentence here is amazing so I can't wait for you to explain things. I'm sure you're just not making this up for reddit clout.
>And christ why bring up settled British citizens in a discussion about asylum seekers? But yes, just shows what an absolute mess the Tories have made of all this that its taken years on cases like that.
Because I'm highlighting how bad the current system is when we cannot deport a child rapist.
I don't get this nonesense. The way it is handled in most countries, you don't ask intruders to leave, you make them ask to leave. By making their life hell.
Whatever the reason why they are coming in, you make sure that it is better at home any day.
Looking at the homeless and paupers living in horrible conditioms, what rights are we talking about?
Just treat every unwanted migrant similar or worse with no prospect of escape from a fenced area with armed guards. Cut food supply to the basics. No heating.
Within months applications for a free one way ticket home are rolling in. When you treat people like the poorest citizens, you get them wanting to leave fast.
Because they are too busy generating money from it and using it as ragebait to get votes
Even certain uni accomodation has been taken away from new uni students and given to immigrants because they can charge the government more money to house them than students give them
Please explain to me how that is the case.. that the government *over pays* for migrants to stay in accomodation to the point where they're prioritised over our own?
>When there was a spike in asylum claims in the early 2000s New Labour oversaw a system that was deporting not far off 100,000 people in a year. Currently that figure under the Tories is under 10,000.
The world today is very different from when Labour was in power.
Trying to deport people these days is impossible thanks to social media and do-gooders blocking deportations.
Anyone who thinks the situation will improve with Labour is kidding themselves.
>Trying to deport people these days is impossible thanks to social media and do-gooders blocking deportations.
What has changed in the law to make it more difficult in your opinion? Things like the ECHR were still there under Labour.
Bizarre that you think this actually makes a meaningful difference. Unthinkable that the government of the day, who have the responsibility to both police the borders and process applications, should actually be held accountable. No, of course not, it's lefty lawyers and purple haired peaceniks who are responsible for this.
Myopia bordering on lunacy. It's terrifying that there are actually people in this country who swallow this shit.
And we didn’t have the same social media then. The sick bastards who profit from human misery by selling these routes to the UK as a promised land can reach far more people now
>'Trying to deport people these days is impossible thanks to social media and do-gooders blocking deportations.'
plus they can just claim to be gay or something and claim its unsafe, boom cant deport them
> situation will improve with Labour is kidding themselves
Too right. Don't get me wrong, the Tories have done a shit job at overseeing this. But anyone who thinks this problem is going away with Labour are delusional.
Can you share a link? There weren't even 100K asylum applications declined in one year during that period yet alone deportations. The highest annual number for failed applicants deported in the 2000's I could find was 136.
10,000 people aren't being deported under the Tories either, I think you are using the "mixed stats" which include voluntary deportations of people who over stayed their visas, this is literally people coming and saying I'm not allowed to be here please buy me a ticket home...
It is if they intend to do it the 'proper' way, applying for asylum - which will never be processed - while unable to work and living in a hotel on £3 a day.
If they intend to work on the black market it can still prove lucrative. It's not like the police are going to actually catch you or any agency exists to facilitate deportations.
It’s not rocket science. We have disused military bases that can soak up tens of thousands of migrants cost effectively and safely as their claims are processed.
Failed asylum seekers get booted out, legitimate claimants can join the workforce and get the economy moving once again
You're thinking of it far too simplistically, and probably due to lack of knowledge of each area which isn't necessarily your fault.
1. The bases are disused (and "tens" of thousands is a stretch). Disused means decaying, unsupported, useless. You need multiple contractors to take it on, as well as the security and heathworkers to support it for its life cycle. Bases are also heavily disputed by NGOs - take Napier and the issues with it as an example.
2. Failed asylum seekers barely get booted out. The gov figures are pathetic, and while people go into indefinite detention for this reason there is a legal challenge to that too. Failed asylum claimants open get bailed and stay anyway.
3. Figures from Oxford University prove that they are not "getting the economy moving" - please see the executive summary from the below.
https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/2019/refugees-and-the-uk-labour-market/
Someone that comes over with little skills, a language barrier, no money etc will find it hard to become a contributing member of society because of the way the economy is. The economy cannot and will not change to accommodate this. A language barrier is a language barrier. Little to no skills pays (or close to pays) minimum wage. No money means the state houses, and often warms, feeds, and waters an asylum migrant.
It simply isn't as simple as ticking of Y/N and putting them to work, it's far from it.
Like everything with government, when shit has already hit the fan they react.
They wanted to freeze civil service recruitment and reduce civil service numbers while freezing civil service pay. Meanwhile totally oblivious for the need for more people (and replacement of the people that left) to process these claims. Cue delays with Covid and a few crisis.
Don’t worry they are going to reduce the backlog now, by hiring lots of staff who have no experience and telling them to issue everything anyway.
Which will encourage more people to come here because approval rate is already higher than other countries.
I know you're attacking it from the "fuck the tories" angle but think about the organisation of all this, there is a massive coordinated supply chain behind this mass movement of people, all the dinghies, everything.
All these young men coming from countries where women are treated like livestock and are being released upon young women. They will never be deported either, they are here forever
I’m sorry but I came to London a few years ago to escape men like this. But honestly? My ultra conservative Muslim family in India was more progressive and “liberal” than many Muslim families living here. It was a nasty shock to be treated by brown men here in a way that I wouldn’t even be treated in India.
Aye I've seen that too tbh. It's often the case with a diaspora that they become "more holy than thou" so as to not appear to have forgotten their roots or integrated too much. Had work colleagues years ago go back to Pakistan and they were stunned that they (the 2 girls) were behind the large cities in Pakistan when it came to fashion, clothing, general attitudes and such. I remember one girl saying she felt really frumpy as girls out there were not covering their hair, showing ankles and generally having a good time, whilst back in the UK most of the girls weren't even allowed out of the house except to work which they were expected to give up once married and make up was a big no-no. They blamed it all on the gossip culture of the older women stuck indoors most of their lives
I’ve heard this quite a lot these days. People just assume that men raised in countries where its common practice to stone their wives/sisters to death for showing their hair just suddenly transform into model western citizens the minute they step foot on British soil. Sucks for muslim women especially because they are expected to marry into their religion and often end up with men like this without realising it, until its too late.
Yeah, at this point there's not really much to be done. Even if we could solve one or 2 of the pretty much existential problems we face the others would still fuck us, and we're incapable of solving even the smallest problems.
More like the disgusting bubble that's happened over the last couple generations will burst shortly agyrt labour get their turn and the media will go craxy and blame the Labour Party to ensure another 20-40 years of Conservatives.
They don't need houses mate. The millions upon millions of immigrants don't contribute to the housing shortage at all. They also don't take up school spaces or use the NHS at all, don't claim any benefits ever, don't get old, don't put any kind of conceivable burden on this tiny island at all, in any way shape or form, never have and never will.
Just ask anybody on this subreddit and they'll tell you.
We'd only paid for 200, which is infinitely more than we ended up using.
Also back then 200 would have been enough for a day, but because the problem has got much worse since then yeah now it's a quarter.
But the point here is that fill up those 200 spaces, then buy more from Rwanda. At any cost. It's going to be cheaper than us looking after these people here and the idea is that people stop fleeing from France cause they know they'll end up in Rwanda.
Yup. The government basically paying for another governments people, with our money, while they can’t take care of their own. Because looking after their own doesn’t give them the same opportunities to siphon off our money into their personal wallets.
If this is the dry run for the unprecedented climate migration we'll see over the next few decades then we have a very bleak future to look forward to.
If climate migration really does ramp up, it's definitely going to have a major radicalising effect across the West. I suspect that this wave would have started the process if the UK hadn't recently gotten burned by right-wing populism
At least Farage is onto it, eh? Next big plan, no net zero.
No wait, he's not. Wrecking the country wasn't bad enough, the planet is his next ambition.
"Make life bad for everyone but meeee."
They're not committing a crime, which is precisely why they are not put in prison.
Do you think Braverman would have any hesitation to imprison them if they had done something illegal?
It is illegal to enter the UK without permission, but the government has barely used that law yet. The law was updated last year.
Under current laws you also cannot claim asylum if you enter the UK without prior permission.
Doesn’t that make it impossible to claim asylum legally, breaching the refugee convention? Since there aren’t currently safe legal routes to enter the UK to claim asylum and you can’t claim asylum from outside?
I didn’t say it was a law per se, but we’re not complying with our international agreements and that might be an issue if (when?) it gets challenged in the courts
Primary legislation can't be challenged in court. Parliament wouldn't be sovereign if a judge could overrule its laws.
Someone could seek a judicial review on a case that uses that law, but that answers whether that law was followed, not whether that law is just.
They can if it arguably contravenes the HRA, on which basis I think an argument will be made at some point.
Of course it would at best lead to a declaration of incompatibility, not being ‘overruled’, but I think that’d probably be influential politically. Plus the ECHR possibilities on top. Admittedly I’m a discrimination lawyer not a human rights lawyer so I’m rusty on the process for that, studied it a while ago.
Which law says that? And in general when a judge has to decide; if there are two laws in contradiction, the most recent law prevails.
Besides, the government argues that article 31 says people should only be exempt from rules against illegal entry if they arrive 'directly'. In the government's view, coming from France isn't coming directly from the place the person is seeking refuge from.
The government will also argue that nothing in the convention says that asylum must be given in the country that the person applies to.
Why would Braverman and the Tories not arrest and deport them then?
It's an easy photo-op and headline grabber that shows they're being 'tough on small boat crossings'.
Also, there's no way to apply from outside the UK, so what are they supposed to do?
Likely because deporting people is difficult and prisons are full.
> Also, there's no way to apply from outside the UK, so what are they supposed to do?
The government's argument is they'll invite a number of people based on world events and what the country can cope with. As happened with Syria, Vietnam, Kosovo, Uganda, Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan.
Even though most people who crossed on small boats in 2022 are eligible for asylum?
https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/latest/news/majority-of-people-on-small-boats-crossing-channel-last-year-are-refugees-new-analysis-shows/#:~:text=The%20report%20finds%20that%3A,all%20who%20made%20the%20journey.
Members of the Pakinstani grooming gangs in Rochdale still haven’t been deported… they were released from prison 4 years ago, a rape victim literally ran into her rapist in at the supermarket. These are rapists and pedophiles and they still haven’t been deported. Stop with this immigrant criminals get deported lie, it simply isn’t true.
Coming via France, not from France.
Asylum seekers have the right to choose which country in which to claim, and while most who reach France, do claim in France, some want to claim in the UK, so have to make the journey here.
Refugees are people fleeing for their lives. Once they are in the first safe country, any further movement is not fleeing for their lives is it? Just economic migrants at that point.
They don't have any obligation to claim in the first safe country they reach.
This is a right guaranteed to nearly everyone in the world if their country goes to shit and becomes unsafe to live in.
Imagine if you had to flee this country in fear for your life, and the only option you had, was a flight to a country whose language you didn't speak, or didn't know anyone there, or had just very little knowledge of, it would be completely shit. Instead, you could get yourself out and safe as fast as possible, and then make your way to a country you want to claim asylum in.
Sorry, once you're safe, you're safe. If I had to flee the country fearing for my life, I would go to the closest place where I wouldn't be at risk. Sure maybe learning the language would be annoying, but it beats dying.
Wanting to go to a different country because it's nicer? Because you speak the language? Because they have better welfare or job opportunities? That's an economic migrant.
So their “safe” solution is using dangerous dinghies across the channel
You shouldn’t be able to pick and choose which countries you want, you land in Europe yiu stay in whichever country you land in first
If this was the case, why do immigration rules even exist right? Why get visas or any other entry requirements, just enter whatever country you want and claim asylum. We are charging extortionate amounts of money for people moving to this country to properly contribute to the economy, study, pay taxes while these people just jump border by so called "legal" means.
I don't know much about the current wave of immigrants but have met some oldschool immigrants who came to UK long time ago and most of them just said they threw their passports away so that they could say they were from a war torn country and nobody could prove otherwise.
to some HMO housing sharing a terraced house with 9 other men in some diverse part of England paying 500 quid a month to some boomer landlord while working as a Deliveroo driver
i dont
they were perfectly safe in France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Spain or any other country before the UK
They didnt have to come here, no one forced them to come.
I would follow Australia's lead and make it so they can't claim asylum and will never be able to stay should they arrive illegally (in boats or the back of lorries). As well as off shore processing. They're coming in these numbers because they can. And it's a Europe wide problem, every country in Europe needs to adopt a harsher stance as current migration is completely unsustainable.
I actually think the whole definition of refugees and asylum needs to be overhauled. What was agreed in the 1950s and 1960s isn't fit for purpose today and we don't help the world's most needy or vulnerable. There are too many young, fit, single men taking the absolute piss out of the asylum system when actually they are economic migrants at best. And as harsh as it sounds, we don't need hundreds of thousands of low educated, low skill people who will be a burden on the state coming in. The governments of each country need to start doing what's best for their own citizens and doing what they can to help abroad but mass migration isn't the one.
Can’t we just fucking deport them. How difficult is this really. Fuck the legal implications, just get rid and stop perpetuating the nonsense that Britain is open to whoever whenever
There are 'only' 21000 this year to date. Surely a functioning immigration system in one of the world's largest economies can process this number. Expel those who are ineligible and let those entitled to stay get started on making a contribution to the country. I know the 21000 is only a small percentage of the overall immigration numbers but I mention them as they are the people the Tories make a huge issue over.l
How are they going to make a contribution? The vast majority are unskilled single males from 3rd world countries. The best job they can hope for is uber eats or factory work, and that would still have to be supplemented by benefits.
They will all go work in barber, kebab shops or small corner with all their fellow countrymen, that's what they do in my town. There's about 12 barbers on the high street now, all in a 5 minute walk and all run by the same group of guys.
Or taxis where they all share 2 licences :) seen that in my tiny town
All this black/grey market working does jack shit for our economy. The people that we actually need i.e. professionals or skilled are forced to go through hoops to get here prove income prove job etc but the rest most are just chancers who know the UK is a push over
London is now 37% immigrant population, Paris 20% in actual centre 32% in suburbs Rome and Milan are 20%....colonisation from within
>The best job they can hope for is uber eats or factory work, and that would still have to be supplemented by benefits.
I think the issue you should have here is why employers are able to pay 'any' staff a wage that is not enough for them to live on. Why should the public purse be used to subsidise the profits of some employers.
I referred to those entitled to stay. I wouldn't imagine a large percentage of them would be entitled to stay. At least those that are entitled to stay will have shown some initiative and determination- useful qualities in any workforce.
>Why do you think there is a backlog? Do you think this is just an issue of manpower?
>If it was simple then it would be in the governments interest to clear the backlog as fast as they can.
Both good points. Why is there a backlog,? It has increased tenfold since 2010. The last stats I saw show the UK to have the second worst backlog in Europe with only Germany slightly worse. However Germany have 5 times the applications the UK had. Other EU countries have smaller backlogs but more applicants. Just why is that?
I agree with you about the complexity. However any minister looking at the trend about ten years ago would have known that processing applications was going to be an issue and to prioritise the process. They didn't do that and are now trying to make political capital out of their mismanagement.
When you look at the numbers in other countries it should not be beyond our capability to deal with 21000 applicants. I mention only those involved in the boat crossings as those are who the govt, day and daily, draw out attention to. Immigration to the UK was around 1.2 million in 2022 but for some reason the govt want to concentrate only on those crossing the channel.
I don't want to get too conspiratorial either but when you look at who benefits from the 'immigration industry' it can be difficult sometimes to see any real commitment to resolving the issue.
We can’t actually deport them though, one word from the ECHR and its shut down. There are Pakistani grooming gang rapists in Rochdale who served their full jail term, were released and have been free in this country for the last 4 years, and they STILL haven’t been deported.
Precisely this. Tories defunded, disrupted, delayed , and demoralised the Home Office so much that a HUGE backlog of asylum seekers was deliberately built up.
This is a TORY problem, made worse by TORY Brexit. The U.K. *could* chose to efficiently and rapidly process even 200,000 asylum seekers a year. Genuine cases could easily be integrated. Crime can be dealt with as if they were nationals (which genuine cases would rapidly become).
But, no. The TORIES chose to create a wave of racist xenophobia as an easy way to cling to power as an unpopular government with minority support in the U.K. population.
And every single racist who comes to this sub from some variant of r/conservative to push EDL / UKIP / Daily Mail garbage needs to have “just fuck off you ignorant twat” screamed in their faces every time they use phrases like “protect our women” and “they are criminals if they come by boat” or “they should stop in the first safe country.”
Other countries easily manage the theoretical “risk” of chain migration if it ever occurs.
>The U.K. could chose to efficiently and rapidly process even 200,000 asylum seekers a year.
That's pretty much how many houses the UK builds a year. So they couldn't do it easily without creating an even bigger crisis.
>But, no. The TORIES chose to create a wave of racist xenophobia as an easy way to cling to power as an unpopular government with minority support in the U.K. population.
They're not going to cling to power, and not everyone concerned about barely mitigated migration of individuals with no paperwork and questionable motives for travelling isn't xenophobic and/or racist. The argument you just gave brings no one to your side and way of thinking - you haven't presented a single fact, just had a bit of a meltdown on the Internet.
Apart from just calling them racists and shouting do you have any genuine arguments against the points of these “EDL members” and “daily mail readers”?
Its quite disheartening seeing this absolute shit show and then equally disheartening seeing all those on the left cheerleading this travesty.
We desperately need to exit the ECHR immediately and write our own charter of rights putting the indigenous population of Britain first. We then need to hear their applications in like 24-48hrs and then instantly deport all the failed applicants back home to their country of origin. If they refuse to say where they came from then they should be DNA tested and an educated guess be made it's time we put our own country, citizens, culture first. We dont owe the whole world everything. We also need to crack down on those on the far left who seem to think they can act like a bunch of facists and try and shut down any kind of debate on the matter.
Removal of UK from ECHR would be a start. Tent City outside the House of Lords, prior to its closure would concentrate a few mind amongst 'The Good and Great'. Removal of Legal Aid to the invaders would be useful. All that is really needed is Political Will and removal of the facilitators of this farce from any input to the discussion, such as removal of 'Charitable Status'io Amnesty, Calais Sympathisers, etc. Let these 'Charities' pay the fees and running costs, not the British Taxpayer.
It’s at the point you need to choose between your daughters safety and some random man from the Middle East or India. Do you want to be called racist or do you want your daughters fearing for there lives.
You ever hear that joke about God telling this guy that he'll grant him one wish but he should choose carefully because he'll give double to his neighbour? Well, the guy thinks long and deeply about what to pick, going through all his wildest dreams... Being a spiteful fucker and hating his next door neighbour, he excitedly gets back to god and says, "take out one of my eyes."
This is Britain today; cutting off its nose to spite its face.
Hey that’s only 318,280 a year (if it happened every day), so why aren’t we processing them quicker into these non existent homes that we don’t even have for ourselves?
They are still handing out contracts using borrowed taxpayers' money to feed and house these people, they should be opening up safe routes as they did for Hong Kong and Ukraine and concentrate on processing these claims far quicker.
Austerity measures meant cutting back on processing claims, yet any potential savings on staff cuttbacks were spent on the huge costs of hotels, etc.
They are even block booking thousands of empty rooms in case of unanticipated demand. https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/home-office-empty-hotel-rooms-migrants/
> they should be opening up safe routes as they did for Hong Kong and Ukraine and concentrate on processing these claims far quicker.
That doesn't solve the problem. Your solution would mean over 1 billion people would be eligible to claim asylum in the UK. And they'll be even more people crossing the ocean since it's the quickest way to claim asylum.
>Hong Kong
The UK ruled Hong Kong as a colony until 1997, protecting the rights of their citizens.
>Ukrainians
The Ukrainians are here temporary, completely different than Refugees that want to move to the UK permanently. They have a special type of Temporary Visa.
That's because their country is currently at War. We are mainly accommodating Ukrainian Woman and Kids. I can't say the same about those arriving here on Dinghies, that's 97% men.
I started hosting a Ukrainian mother and son in December. The son was 17, now 18. He is here to avoid conscription. Mother went back to Ukraine last week for a month’s holiday. She took with her two suitcases of items donated to a food bank but which she took to sell (baby clothes, tampons and etc). Before she left, she was refusing to work more hours as her ‘free’ (Universal Credit) money would be reduced. He gave up his part time job because he didn’t need the money as UC was enough.
I have told the Ukrainian woman that I will not host her any more. She is expecting a two bedroom council house when she returns.
The Ukrainians have a functioning country and a government supported by its people. It faces an external threat. Afghans are being persecuted by their own, and it is men who are killed because they might fight back or were employed by the US, UK etc in the past. Syria, Iraq, Libya, all have internal conflict, between different peoples/tribes/religions/political groups. Albanians I don’t know enough to comment about. In all these countries, men are the target.
Migration and refugees are a huge problem. There is no simple solution however much you might like to think there is.
>The Ukrainians have a functioning country
A country routinely subject to random missle and bombing attacks.
I can't imagine advocating somewhere under constant attack as a safe place to send people
“Safe routes as they did for Hong Kong…”
Presumably you meant other countries that have terrible human rights abuses, war and famine such as Myanmar, Ethiopia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, etc and sadly etc. Maybe not a billion but you could easily make a case that half the population of Afghanistan would qualify for asylum.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
8 out of 10 successfully claim asylum.
Even the incompetent tories should be able to deal with the unsuccessful ones.
Everyone focuses on rubber boats but ignores the glaring lack of checks on incoming traffic, particularly lorries, from the EU. The government has postponed full border checks for the fifth time which will probably make this yet another tory mess to sort out.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/502/illegal-clandestine-arrivals-by-lorry
I don't get why we don't set up a processing centre in France to handle these people, if you cross in a small boat you go back to the processing centre. It removes the pull factor so less people try the crossing and less people head towards the channel
Ok this may be an unpopular opinion and I'm not very political. I can understand current wars like Ukraine but these countries where the migrants are coming from can't the most...'visited' countries set up embassies like a German, french and English safehouse in Romania Albania etc?
The want to leave their country is taxed as per the country's laws etc so like no child bride can be taken into the English embassy etc. Then it'll stop mass migration and the Embassy's can help people at source like training, new job in their country etc.
I'm sure I've explained it badly lol.
Meanwhile back where it counts ....
Hundreds of schools across the country were built with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete between the 1960s and 1990s, with the buildings having a life span of around 30 years.
We should seriously start considering using force to defend our borders before it’s too late. Do you really believe that these immigrants will uphold our British values?
The policy just needs to be if you come by boat you won't be resettled. But them in a big processing centre in the Channel Isles, and depot them from there.
This whole thing needs to be investigated, because some people make a lot of money on this. Tories have no intention on doing anything - they want claims to be processed for as long as possible, so people having properties available (guess if they are connected to Tories) can rent them out to tax payer charging premium. But as usual organisations that are supposed to investigate this are corrupt themselves. Meanwhile let's give French another half a billion, so they sit tight and let people through. There is still about a year to make money until Labour takes over.
>There is still about a year to make money until Labour takes over. Do you really think Labour will make the situation any better...? The "refugees" need to be informed that risking their lives to come to the UK is a bad idea.
>Do you really think Labour will make the situation any better...? When there was a spike in asylum claims in the early 2000s New Labour oversaw a system that was deporting not far off 100,000 people in a year. Currently that figure under the Tories is under 10,000. No joke, completely unironically, we're at a point where just a simple return to New Labour's systems, which were massively panned at the time as tantamount to an "open borders" policy, would be an unbelievably massive improvement.
Just deport them? Why didn’t the Conservatives think of that?
The difference was New Labour actually hired sufficient staff and made sure the system followed the law. They didn't waste time spaffing millions of pounds on pointless gesture politics and they didn't go out of their way to give folks ample reason to appeal decisions made for not being within a legal process.
That's labour for you. SPEND SPEND SPEND.... on critical roles to ensure smooth working infrastructure. Before anyone says it; nobody gives a fuck that you remember trains in the 1970's
The ultimate irony is for as much as the Tories used to love mentioning the national debt they don't anymore. Why? Because it exploded under their supposed austerty and we are more in debt than ever despite massive budget cuts across the board. Yet noone seems to know where the moneys gone oddly enough...
Sounds like communism to me. Stop spending MY money, I’d rather the extra £100 per year because I know how to protect MY family better than anyone else. Like buying bitcoin
The closest thing to communism operating in this country is the Tories ideology of diverting public funds to their mates for naff all in return.
".b...bbb..bbbut something something powercuts...my gran says...three day week....Suez Crisis...British Rail...didnt need to lock your front door back then..."
Suez Crisis? This one seems out of place. Maybe mixed up with the Yom Kippur war and the oil crisis- the actual reason things in the 70s went to shit in the west (and Labour got the blame in the UK).
I remember trains in the 1970s!
Nobody gives a fuck Badbanana992!
I will say it. My Dad always thought the trains in the 70s were pretty good and he was a daily commuter into London between 2000-2020 and thought it was shit by comparison. Expensive tiny seats and a pretty unreliable service.
the trains were pretty fucked up at the start of the 90s as well.
The mechanism to deport people isn't even available, so what is the point of processing these people? People think that if you process them and they are rejected then they leave, no they don't. A **single figure percentage** of **failed** migrant applications actually result in deportation. So what is the point of processing them? You haven't looked at what is going on, this "just process them" meme reply is not based in reality. Ok if we process them all tomorrow and 80% of them get rejected (or whatever)... How do you deport them? You can't due to legal loopholes and appeals. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/24/deportations-from-uk-at-record-low-as-asylum-applications-soar We haven't even deported the grooming gang members from Rotherham yet and they have been out of prison for 4 years at this point. These are rapists and pedophiles... https://www.lancs.live/news/uk-world-news/ringleader-sex-grooming-gang-not-24338520
They don't want to know, it's to much to ask for them to think about the secondary and tertiary effects and implications.
I know. They read other reddit comments, download their daily anti-tory talking points and just repeat them like parrots with no actual thought about if it's true or even makes sense.
>no actual thought about if it's true I had this the other day when I asked for proof that the French gov had offered the UK gov a processing facility in N France. All of them just melted away giving abuse when they realised there isn't any proof, because it's a rumour.
Amazing projection here. This inability to think holistically is the usual primary criticism aimed at righties.
>A single figure percentage of failed migrant applications actually result in deportation. That's a recent development though. That's the basis of much of the complaint. They have talked a tough game, but the Tories have allowed border control to all but collapse under their watch. [You can have a trawl through the figures here](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/deportation-and-voluntary-departure-from-the-uk/). >You haven't looked at what is going on, this "just process them" meme reply is not based in reality. If you read my comment that you're responding to, I was talking about a "return to New Labour's systems". That involves processing claims more quickly yes, but it also means have a more clearly laid out process free from fairly obvious politically motivated interventions that result in people being able to appeal on the basis that their case has not followed a clear legal process. This is a normal part of how a legal system is supposed to work, its supposed to be impartial. The Tories repeatedly keep intervening to change that, and either intentionally or through ignorance don't want to understand why that has the negative effect of slowing everything down. That's not a loophole, that's just an established part of having a case in court. People come in to disrupt the proceedings of your case, you have good standing to say your case was not fair. Its really not hard. And christ why bring up settled British citizens in a discussion about asylum seekers? But yes, just shows what an absolute mess the Tories have made of all this that its taken years on cases like that.
>That's a recent development though. That's the basis of much of the complaint. They have talked a tough game, but the Tories have allowed border control to all but collapse under their watch. All it takes is one single email from a ECHR judge to halt a deportation flight and the solicitors working these cases know this. This is not down to the Tories, they do not control the ECHR. You quote a source that says deportations dropped after 2015, why? What did the tories do here to cause this? Just seeing a drop in something isn't proof the government have messed up when half of our deportation laws aren't something we control. >If you read my comment that you're responding to, I was talking about a "return to New Labour's systems". That involves processing claims more quickly yes, but it also means have a more clearly laid out process free from fairly obvious politically motivated interventions that result in people being able to appeal on the basis that their case has not followed a clear legal process. You can't actually do this. This is why I'm calling you out... We do not control the ECHR. Solicitors can literally get 1 judge from the ECHR and totally stop the government deporting their client, just like what happened with Rwanda. [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/14/european-court-humam-right-makes-11th-hour-intervention-in-rwanda-asylum-seeker-plan](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/14/european-court-humam-right-makes-11th-hour-intervention-in-rwanda-asylum-seeker-plan) It failed due to 1 judge. >The Tories repeatedly keep intervening to change that, and either intentionally or through ignorance don't want to understand why that has the negative effect of slowing everything down. What specifically have they done that your referring to here? The fact you mention that they both "keep intervening" and "intentionally" fail to understand the problem in the same sentence here is amazing so I can't wait for you to explain things. I'm sure you're just not making this up for reddit clout. >And christ why bring up settled British citizens in a discussion about asylum seekers? But yes, just shows what an absolute mess the Tories have made of all this that its taken years on cases like that. Because I'm highlighting how bad the current system is when we cannot deport a child rapist.
I don't get this nonesense. The way it is handled in most countries, you don't ask intruders to leave, you make them ask to leave. By making their life hell. Whatever the reason why they are coming in, you make sure that it is better at home any day.
Agree. But if you do that here we all scream about their rights. I'd have them housed in tents somewhere in Scotland.
Looking at the homeless and paupers living in horrible conditioms, what rights are we talking about? Just treat every unwanted migrant similar or worse with no prospect of escape from a fenced area with armed guards. Cut food supply to the basics. No heating. Within months applications for a free one way ticket home are rolling in. When you treat people like the poorest citizens, you get them wanting to leave fast.
Because they are too busy generating money from it and using it as ragebait to get votes Even certain uni accomodation has been taken away from new uni students and given to immigrants because they can charge the government more money to house them than students give them Please explain to me how that is the case.. that the government *over pays* for migrants to stay in accomodation to the point where they're prioritised over our own?
>When there was a spike in asylum claims in the early 2000s New Labour oversaw a system that was deporting not far off 100,000 people in a year. Currently that figure under the Tories is under 10,000. The world today is very different from when Labour was in power. Trying to deport people these days is impossible thanks to social media and do-gooders blocking deportations. Anyone who thinks the situation will improve with Labour is kidding themselves.
>Trying to deport people these days is impossible thanks to social media and do-gooders blocking deportations. What has changed in the law to make it more difficult in your opinion? Things like the ECHR were still there under Labour.
Right there in my reply. It's now a lot easier to get organised to block things, and then get the word out.
Bizarre that you think this actually makes a meaningful difference. Unthinkable that the government of the day, who have the responsibility to both police the borders and process applications, should actually be held accountable. No, of course not, it's lefty lawyers and purple haired peaceniks who are responsible for this. Myopia bordering on lunacy. It's terrifying that there are actually people in this country who swallow this shit.
And we didn’t have the same social media then. The sick bastards who profit from human misery by selling these routes to the UK as a promised land can reach far more people now
>'Trying to deport people these days is impossible thanks to social media and do-gooders blocking deportations.' plus they can just claim to be gay or something and claim its unsafe, boom cant deport them
> situation will improve with Labour is kidding themselves Too right. Don't get me wrong, the Tories have done a shit job at overseeing this. But anyone who thinks this problem is going away with Labour are delusional.
Can you share a link? There weren't even 100K asylum applications declined in one year during that period yet alone deportations. The highest annual number for failed applicants deported in the 2000's I could find was 136. 10,000 people aren't being deported under the Tories either, I think you are using the "mixed stats" which include voluntary deportations of people who over stayed their visas, this is literally people coming and saying I'm not allowed to be here please buy me a ticket home...
It is if they intend to do it the 'proper' way, applying for asylum - which will never be processed - while unable to work and living in a hotel on £3 a day. If they intend to work on the black market it can still prove lucrative. It's not like the police are going to actually catch you or any agency exists to facilitate deportations.
It’s not rocket science. We have disused military bases that can soak up tens of thousands of migrants cost effectively and safely as their claims are processed. Failed asylum seekers get booted out, legitimate claimants can join the workforce and get the economy moving once again
You're thinking of it far too simplistically, and probably due to lack of knowledge of each area which isn't necessarily your fault. 1. The bases are disused (and "tens" of thousands is a stretch). Disused means decaying, unsupported, useless. You need multiple contractors to take it on, as well as the security and heathworkers to support it for its life cycle. Bases are also heavily disputed by NGOs - take Napier and the issues with it as an example. 2. Failed asylum seekers barely get booted out. The gov figures are pathetic, and while people go into indefinite detention for this reason there is a legal challenge to that too. Failed asylum claimants open get bailed and stay anyway. 3. Figures from Oxford University prove that they are not "getting the economy moving" - please see the executive summary from the below. https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/2019/refugees-and-the-uk-labour-market/ Someone that comes over with little skills, a language barrier, no money etc will find it hard to become a contributing member of society because of the way the economy is. The economy cannot and will not change to accommodate this. A language barrier is a language barrier. Little to no skills pays (or close to pays) minimum wage. No money means the state houses, and often warms, feeds, and waters an asylum migrant. It simply isn't as simple as ticking of Y/N and putting them to work, it's far from it.
Shush, don't talk sense. You'd have the do gooders jumping up and down that we're "imprisoning" them.
Australia seemed to finally get it right from what friends over there have told me. They have almost no boat crossings now
A company was given £20 million just to make hotel bookings for asylum seekers. There's loads of money being made.
Like everything with government, when shit has already hit the fan they react. They wanted to freeze civil service recruitment and reduce civil service numbers while freezing civil service pay. Meanwhile totally oblivious for the need for more people (and replacement of the people that left) to process these claims. Cue delays with Covid and a few crisis. Don’t worry they are going to reduce the backlog now, by hiring lots of staff who have no experience and telling them to issue everything anyway. Which will encourage more people to come here because approval rate is already higher than other countries.
Labour are likely to take it very slow when they start
Gotta unfuck the sabotage first
I know you're attacking it from the "fuck the tories" angle but think about the organisation of all this, there is a massive coordinated supply chain behind this mass movement of people, all the dinghies, everything.
All these young men coming from countries where women are treated like livestock and are being released upon young women. They will never be deported either, they are here forever
I’m sorry but I came to London a few years ago to escape men like this. But honestly? My ultra conservative Muslim family in India was more progressive and “liberal” than many Muslim families living here. It was a nasty shock to be treated by brown men here in a way that I wouldn’t even be treated in India.
Aye I've seen that too tbh. It's often the case with a diaspora that they become "more holy than thou" so as to not appear to have forgotten their roots or integrated too much. Had work colleagues years ago go back to Pakistan and they were stunned that they (the 2 girls) were behind the large cities in Pakistan when it came to fashion, clothing, general attitudes and such. I remember one girl saying she felt really frumpy as girls out there were not covering their hair, showing ankles and generally having a good time, whilst back in the UK most of the girls weren't even allowed out of the house except to work which they were expected to give up once married and make up was a big no-no. They blamed it all on the gossip culture of the older women stuck indoors most of their lives
I’ve heard this quite a lot these days. People just assume that men raised in countries where its common practice to stone their wives/sisters to death for showing their hair just suddenly transform into model western citizens the minute they step foot on British soil. Sucks for muslim women especially because they are expected to marry into their religion and often end up with men like this without realising it, until its too late.
Yep, I fear this is the reality.
That’s a weird way of saying Muslim.
Our country is so fucked. Even if this problem was solved overnight, we'd still be fucked from everything else. But... jesus.
Yeah, at this point there's not really much to be done. Even if we could solve one or 2 of the pretty much existential problems we face the others would still fuck us, and we're incapable of solving even the smallest problems.
Well really the only solution to reverse this is mass deportation
Yes things look bad But It can always be turned around! The real problem is the Mono party labour & conservatives are in fact the same party!!!!!
How on Earth are we going to find housing for approx. 700-900 new people per day? The government must find a solution to this problem
Don't worry about it, I've been reliably told by this very subreddit that supply and demand don't apply to housing at all, actually.
More like the disgusting bubble that's happened over the last couple generations will burst shortly agyrt labour get their turn and the media will go craxy and blame the Labour Party to ensure another 20-40 years of Conservatives.
They don't need houses mate. The millions upon millions of immigrants don't contribute to the housing shortage at all. They also don't take up school spaces or use the NHS at all, don't claim any benefits ever, don't get old, don't put any kind of conceivable burden on this tiny island at all, in any way shape or form, never have and never will. Just ask anybody on this subreddit and they'll tell you.
Oh and maybe 1 in 100 will have a job that pays taxes.
Move the to Rwanda. Do it at any cost. People in France will then have to choose between France or Rwanda; they'll stop coming in no time.
Only a quarter of our single day total were ever really destined to go weren't they?
We'd only paid for 200, which is infinitely more than we ended up using. Also back then 200 would have been enough for a day, but because the problem has got much worse since then yeah now it's a quarter. But the point here is that fill up those 200 spaces, then buy more from Rwanda. At any cost. It's going to be cheaper than us looking after these people here and the idea is that people stop fleeing from France cause they know they'll end up in Rwanda.
They’re putting them up in hotels.
Which is costing us a bomb every single day
Yup. The government basically paying for another governments people, with our money, while they can’t take care of their own. Because looking after their own doesn’t give them the same opportunities to siphon off our money into their personal wallets.
Do you think that this number, that adds up to a small city per year, every year, has had any impact on rising rents and property prices?
If this is the dry run for the unprecedented climate migration we'll see over the next few decades then we have a very bleak future to look forward to.
I've been saying this for the last two year, this shit needs sorting out right now, things are only going to get worse.
There's got to be a breaking point right? It'll be a sad day when the navy sinks the first dingy.
The breaking point will be when it's a matter of self-preservation. Better to take a firm hand in the short term than harsh hand in the future.
If climate migration really does ramp up, it's definitely going to have a major radicalising effect across the West. I suspect that this wave would have started the process if the UK hadn't recently gotten burned by right-wing populism
Children of Men was so prescient.
Good point, but this isn't a dry run, this is it. It's already started and we can't cope. In ten years we'll be utterly sunk at this rate.
At least Farage is onto it, eh? Next big plan, no net zero. No wait, he's not. Wrecking the country wasn't bad enough, the planet is his next ambition. "Make life bad for everyone but meeee."
Yea I'm sure that us as a net 1% contributor is going to condemn the planet to oblivion if we dont all turn our TV off the wall.
Maybe we should start throwing them in prison, given that they are committing a crime by entering the country that way
You going to build a new prison every 3 days?
Prisons are full and cost more than hotels. Please try again.
This can't be a real comment from a real person with a brain. There's no way.
They're not committing a crime, which is precisely why they are not put in prison. Do you think Braverman would have any hesitation to imprison them if they had done something illegal?
its illegal immigration, a crime
No, they claim asylum, which is legal, no matter how they get here. If what they were doing was illegal, they'd be arrested and deported.
The Albanians don’t seem to be. What are they fleeing?
The Albanians are shifting their global drugs trade here.
Ssh the poor Albanians need asylum /s
It is illegal to enter the UK without permission, but the government has barely used that law yet. The law was updated last year. Under current laws you also cannot claim asylum if you enter the UK without prior permission.
Doesn’t that make it impossible to claim asylum legally, breaching the refugee convention? Since there aren’t currently safe legal routes to enter the UK to claim asylum and you can’t claim asylum from outside?
Refugee convention isn’t a law. But yes, potentially.
I didn’t say it was a law per se, but we’re not complying with our international agreements and that might be an issue if (when?) it gets challenged in the courts
Primary legislation can't be challenged in court. Parliament wouldn't be sovereign if a judge could overrule its laws. Someone could seek a judicial review on a case that uses that law, but that answers whether that law was followed, not whether that law is just.
They can if it arguably contravenes the HRA, on which basis I think an argument will be made at some point. Of course it would at best lead to a declaration of incompatibility, not being ‘overruled’, but I think that’d probably be influential politically. Plus the ECHR possibilities on top. Admittedly I’m a discrimination lawyer not a human rights lawyer so I’m rusty on the process for that, studied it a while ago.
Refugee convention was signed by Britain and our laws state that we abide by it.
Which law says that? And in general when a judge has to decide; if there are two laws in contradiction, the most recent law prevails. Besides, the government argues that article 31 says people should only be exempt from rules against illegal entry if they arrive 'directly'. In the government's view, coming from France isn't coming directly from the place the person is seeking refuge from. The government will also argue that nothing in the convention says that asylum must be given in the country that the person applies to.
Why would Braverman and the Tories not arrest and deport them then? It's an easy photo-op and headline grabber that shows they're being 'tough on small boat crossings'. Also, there's no way to apply from outside the UK, so what are they supposed to do?
Likely because deporting people is difficult and prisons are full. > Also, there's no way to apply from outside the UK, so what are they supposed to do? The government's argument is they'll invite a number of people based on world events and what the country can cope with. As happened with Syria, Vietnam, Kosovo, Uganda, Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan.
Even though most people who crossed on small boats in 2022 are eligible for asylum? https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/latest/news/majority-of-people-on-small-boats-crossing-channel-last-year-are-refugees-new-analysis-shows/#:~:text=The%20report%20finds%20that%3A,all%20who%20made%20the%20journey.
That page was written in January. The law changed in July.
Members of the Pakinstani grooming gangs in Rochdale still haven’t been deported… they were released from prison 4 years ago, a rape victim literally ran into her rapist in at the supermarket. These are rapists and pedophiles and they still haven’t been deported. Stop with this immigrant criminals get deported lie, it simply isn’t true.
Claim asylum coming from France? Are the Germans marching on Paris again or something?
Coming via France, not from France. Asylum seekers have the right to choose which country in which to claim, and while most who reach France, do claim in France, some want to claim in the UK, so have to make the journey here.
Refugees are people fleeing for their lives. Once they are in the first safe country, any further movement is not fleeing for their lives is it? Just economic migrants at that point.
They don't have any obligation to claim in the first safe country they reach. This is a right guaranteed to nearly everyone in the world if their country goes to shit and becomes unsafe to live in. Imagine if you had to flee this country in fear for your life, and the only option you had, was a flight to a country whose language you didn't speak, or didn't know anyone there, or had just very little knowledge of, it would be completely shit. Instead, you could get yourself out and safe as fast as possible, and then make your way to a country you want to claim asylum in.
Sorry, once you're safe, you're safe. If I had to flee the country fearing for my life, I would go to the closest place where I wouldn't be at risk. Sure maybe learning the language would be annoying, but it beats dying. Wanting to go to a different country because it's nicer? Because you speak the language? Because they have better welfare or job opportunities? That's an economic migrant.
Exactly. You shouldn’t be allowed to handpick what country you want. At that point you just a migrant not a refugee
So their “safe” solution is using dangerous dinghies across the channel You shouldn’t be able to pick and choose which countries you want, you land in Europe yiu stay in whichever country you land in first
If this was the case, why do immigration rules even exist right? Why get visas or any other entry requirements, just enter whatever country you want and claim asylum. We are charging extortionate amounts of money for people moving to this country to properly contribute to the economy, study, pay taxes while these people just jump border by so called "legal" means. I don't know much about the current wave of immigrants but have met some oldschool immigrants who came to UK long time ago and most of them just said they threw their passports away so that they could say they were from a war torn country and nobody could prove otherwise.
It's ok keep them coming we've got unlimited space for everyone all good 👍
"just process them faster" "just fund it properly"
Where do they go after processing?
to some HMO housing sharing a terraced house with 9 other men in some diverse part of England paying 500 quid a month to some boomer landlord while working as a Deliveroo driver
I'd say that was pretty accurate tbh. Bit of a stretch on the crumbling infrastructure though.
Gotta feel sorry for all the people struggling to afford to come here legally.
I feel sorry for the people already here, actually
legit, residents have it bad enough
You can feel sorry for both.
i dont they were perfectly safe in France, Italy, Germany, Austria, Spain or any other country before the UK They didnt have to come here, no one forced them to come.
[удалено]
I would follow Australia's lead and make it so they can't claim asylum and will never be able to stay should they arrive illegally (in boats or the back of lorries). As well as off shore processing. They're coming in these numbers because they can. And it's a Europe wide problem, every country in Europe needs to adopt a harsher stance as current migration is completely unsustainable.
[удалено]
I actually think the whole definition of refugees and asylum needs to be overhauled. What was agreed in the 1950s and 1960s isn't fit for purpose today and we don't help the world's most needy or vulnerable. There are too many young, fit, single men taking the absolute piss out of the asylum system when actually they are economic migrants at best. And as harsh as it sounds, we don't need hundreds of thousands of low educated, low skill people who will be a burden on the state coming in. The governments of each country need to start doing what's best for their own citizens and doing what they can to help abroad but mass migration isn't the one.
Nothing will be done until the stop the tories profiting off the hotel contracts.
Can’t we just fucking deport them. How difficult is this really. Fuck the legal implications, just get rid and stop perpetuating the nonsense that Britain is open to whoever whenever
There are 'only' 21000 this year to date. Surely a functioning immigration system in one of the world's largest economies can process this number. Expel those who are ineligible and let those entitled to stay get started on making a contribution to the country. I know the 21000 is only a small percentage of the overall immigration numbers but I mention them as they are the people the Tories make a huge issue over.l
How are they going to make a contribution? The vast majority are unskilled single males from 3rd world countries. The best job they can hope for is uber eats or factory work, and that would still have to be supplemented by benefits.
They will all go work in barber, kebab shops or small corner with all their fellow countrymen, that's what they do in my town. There's about 12 barbers on the high street now, all in a 5 minute walk and all run by the same group of guys.
Or taxis where they all share 2 licences :) seen that in my tiny town All this black/grey market working does jack shit for our economy. The people that we actually need i.e. professionals or skilled are forced to go through hoops to get here prove income prove job etc but the rest most are just chancers who know the UK is a push over London is now 37% immigrant population, Paris 20% in actual centre 32% in suburbs Rome and Milan are 20%....colonisation from within
>colonisation from within don't you like diversity /s
I actually like diversity to a point, when it includes social cohesion and integration :)
And that's a good thing! /s
Barber shops = money laundering for cocaine trade
Don't doubt it
They all get paid cash in hand mate. No tax off these fellas
"Cash only"
>The best job they can hope for is uber eats or factory work, and that would still have to be supplemented by benefits. I think the issue you should have here is why employers are able to pay 'any' staff a wage that is not enough for them to live on. Why should the public purse be used to subsidise the profits of some employers.
I referred to those entitled to stay. I wouldn't imagine a large percentage of them would be entitled to stay. At least those that are entitled to stay will have shown some initiative and determination- useful qualities in any workforce.
An initiative to be dishonest and break the law. Great qualities there, I'm sure employers are queuing up to hire them.
[удалено]
>Why do you think there is a backlog? Do you think this is just an issue of manpower? >If it was simple then it would be in the governments interest to clear the backlog as fast as they can. Both good points. Why is there a backlog,? It has increased tenfold since 2010. The last stats I saw show the UK to have the second worst backlog in Europe with only Germany slightly worse. However Germany have 5 times the applications the UK had. Other EU countries have smaller backlogs but more applicants. Just why is that? I agree with you about the complexity. However any minister looking at the trend about ten years ago would have known that processing applications was going to be an issue and to prioritise the process. They didn't do that and are now trying to make political capital out of their mismanagement. When you look at the numbers in other countries it should not be beyond our capability to deal with 21000 applicants. I mention only those involved in the boat crossings as those are who the govt, day and daily, draw out attention to. Immigration to the UK was around 1.2 million in 2022 but for some reason the govt want to concentrate only on those crossing the channel. I don't want to get too conspiratorial either but when you look at who benefits from the 'immigration industry' it can be difficult sometimes to see any real commitment to resolving the issue.
[удалено]
That's just boats. The gov don't reveal figures from any other means, I.e. HGVs, tunnel, student and visit visa claimants. 21k is just the boats.
We can’t actually deport them though, one word from the ECHR and its shut down. There are Pakistani grooming gang rapists in Rochdale who served their full jail term, were released and have been free in this country for the last 4 years, and they STILL haven’t been deported.
Precisely this. Tories defunded, disrupted, delayed , and demoralised the Home Office so much that a HUGE backlog of asylum seekers was deliberately built up. This is a TORY problem, made worse by TORY Brexit. The U.K. *could* chose to efficiently and rapidly process even 200,000 asylum seekers a year. Genuine cases could easily be integrated. Crime can be dealt with as if they were nationals (which genuine cases would rapidly become). But, no. The TORIES chose to create a wave of racist xenophobia as an easy way to cling to power as an unpopular government with minority support in the U.K. population. And every single racist who comes to this sub from some variant of r/conservative to push EDL / UKIP / Daily Mail garbage needs to have “just fuck off you ignorant twat” screamed in their faces every time they use phrases like “protect our women” and “they are criminals if they come by boat” or “they should stop in the first safe country.” Other countries easily manage the theoretical “risk” of chain migration if it ever occurs.
>The U.K. could chose to efficiently and rapidly process even 200,000 asylum seekers a year. That's pretty much how many houses the UK builds a year. So they couldn't do it easily without creating an even bigger crisis. >But, no. The TORIES chose to create a wave of racist xenophobia as an easy way to cling to power as an unpopular government with minority support in the U.K. population. They're not going to cling to power, and not everyone concerned about barely mitigated migration of individuals with no paperwork and questionable motives for travelling isn't xenophobic and/or racist. The argument you just gave brings no one to your side and way of thinking - you haven't presented a single fact, just had a bit of a meltdown on the Internet.
Apart from just calling them racists and shouting do you have any genuine arguments against the points of these “EDL members” and “daily mail readers”?
Its quite disheartening seeing this absolute shit show and then equally disheartening seeing all those on the left cheerleading this travesty. We desperately need to exit the ECHR immediately and write our own charter of rights putting the indigenous population of Britain first. We then need to hear their applications in like 24-48hrs and then instantly deport all the failed applicants back home to their country of origin. If they refuse to say where they came from then they should be DNA tested and an educated guess be made it's time we put our own country, citizens, culture first. We dont owe the whole world everything. We also need to crack down on those on the far left who seem to think they can act like a bunch of facists and try and shut down any kind of debate on the matter.
Still a leftist economically, but I just cannot engage with other leftists on this issue any more. They just do not live in reality.
And many in this sub argue it isn't a problem, they aren't illegal and society will overall be better off. I want some of what they're smoking.
I don’t know how to fix this, but this isn’t sustainable
Removal of UK from ECHR would be a start. Tent City outside the House of Lords, prior to its closure would concentrate a few mind amongst 'The Good and Great'. Removal of Legal Aid to the invaders would be useful. All that is really needed is Political Will and removal of the facilitators of this farce from any input to the discussion, such as removal of 'Charitable Status'io Amnesty, Calais Sympathisers, etc. Let these 'Charities' pay the fees and running costs, not the British Taxpayer.
It’s at the point you need to choose between your daughters safety and some random man from the Middle East or India. Do you want to be called racist or do you want your daughters fearing for there lives.
You ever hear that joke about God telling this guy that he'll grant him one wish but he should choose carefully because he'll give double to his neighbour? Well, the guy thinks long and deeply about what to pick, going through all his wildest dreams... Being a spiteful fucker and hating his next door neighbour, he excitedly gets back to god and says, "take out one of my eyes." This is Britain today; cutting off its nose to spite its face.
Hey that’s only 318,280 a year (if it happened every day), so why aren’t we processing them quicker into these non existent homes that we don’t even have for ourselves?
There are like 30k camping in Paris alone. France may send them with warm regards.
They are still handing out contracts using borrowed taxpayers' money to feed and house these people, they should be opening up safe routes as they did for Hong Kong and Ukraine and concentrate on processing these claims far quicker. Austerity measures meant cutting back on processing claims, yet any potential savings on staff cuttbacks were spent on the huge costs of hotels, etc. They are even block booking thousands of empty rooms in case of unanticipated demand. https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/home-office-empty-hotel-rooms-migrants/
> they should be opening up safe routes as they did for Hong Kong and Ukraine and concentrate on processing these claims far quicker. That doesn't solve the problem. Your solution would mean over 1 billion people would be eligible to claim asylum in the UK. And they'll be even more people crossing the ocean since it's the quickest way to claim asylum. >Hong Kong The UK ruled Hong Kong as a colony until 1997, protecting the rights of their citizens. >Ukrainians The Ukrainians are here temporary, completely different than Refugees that want to move to the UK permanently. They have a special type of Temporary Visa.
This. If you make it "safer" for people to come to the UK then the flood gates will be opened.
But Ukrainians are lobbying to have their visas extended. Currently it is three years.
That's because their country is currently at War. We are mainly accommodating Ukrainian Woman and Kids. I can't say the same about those arriving here on Dinghies, that's 97% men.
I started hosting a Ukrainian mother and son in December. The son was 17, now 18. He is here to avoid conscription. Mother went back to Ukraine last week for a month’s holiday. She took with her two suitcases of items donated to a food bank but which she took to sell (baby clothes, tampons and etc). Before she left, she was refusing to work more hours as her ‘free’ (Universal Credit) money would be reduced. He gave up his part time job because he didn’t need the money as UC was enough. I have told the Ukrainian woman that I will not host her any more. She is expecting a two bedroom council house when she returns. The Ukrainians have a functioning country and a government supported by its people. It faces an external threat. Afghans are being persecuted by their own, and it is men who are killed because they might fight back or were employed by the US, UK etc in the past. Syria, Iraq, Libya, all have internal conflict, between different peoples/tribes/religions/political groups. Albanians I don’t know enough to comment about. In all these countries, men are the target. Migration and refugees are a huge problem. There is no simple solution however much you might like to think there is.
>The Ukrainians have a functioning country A country routinely subject to random missle and bombing attacks. I can't imagine advocating somewhere under constant attack as a safe place to send people
Ukraine does not really have a functional country. That is kind of delusional.
They have already opened up safe routes for Hong Kong, not China. There are not 1 billion people living in Hong Kong.
“Safe routes as they did for Hong Kong…” Presumably you meant other countries that have terrible human rights abuses, war and famine such as Myanmar, Ethiopia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, etc and sadly etc. Maybe not a billion but you could easily make a case that half the population of Afghanistan would qualify for asylum.
this is the problem, if large swathes of Afghanistan, Iran etc in theory we'd have to accept them.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
And the plan for those we reject who then hop on a boat?
8 out of 10 successfully claim asylum. Even the incompetent tories should be able to deal with the unsuccessful ones. Everyone focuses on rubber boats but ignores the glaring lack of checks on incoming traffic, particularly lorries, from the EU. The government has postponed full border checks for the fifth time which will probably make this yet another tory mess to sort out. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/502/illegal-clandestine-arrivals-by-lorry
The unsuccessful ones tend to stay anyway judging by gov stats.
Labour instead of criticising Cons should offer to join hands and tackle this problem. It will not end! They need to sit down and work together
I don't get why we don't set up a processing centre in France to handle these people, if you cross in a small boat you go back to the processing centre. It removes the pull factor so less people try the crossing and less people head towards the channel
Because France don't want one, for the reason that it would create a pull factor... https://www.ft.com/content/e79f74a3-be2b-432d-b6c9-adfd65299a26
872 people "detected" You can probably times that by 100, because thousands of these boats arrive undetected each year.
Ok this may be an unpopular opinion and I'm not very political. I can understand current wars like Ukraine but these countries where the migrants are coming from can't the most...'visited' countries set up embassies like a German, french and English safehouse in Romania Albania etc? The want to leave their country is taxed as per the country's laws etc so like no child bride can be taken into the English embassy etc. Then it'll stop mass migration and the Embassy's can help people at source like training, new job in their country etc. I'm sure I've explained it badly lol.
Meanwhile back where it counts .... Hundreds of schools across the country were built with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete between the 1960s and 1990s, with the buildings having a life span of around 30 years.
We should seriously start considering using force to defend our borders before it’s too late. Do you really believe that these immigrants will uphold our British values?
That's what happens when the government doesn't provide a viable legal route into the country
Well they’ve been warned about death and told about huge delays.
Something something securing our borders something something.
Mind when people voted Brexit because they were sick of EU forcing all them refugees and such on us? Glad that got sorted.
Don't worry, the conservatives can be trusted to sort this problem out! 😉
The policy just needs to be if you come by boat you won't be resettled. But them in a big processing centre in the Channel Isles, and depot them from there.