How can Sunak stop "illegal" entry for asylum seekers if there is no "legal" way.

Figures being thrown around are £7 million a day.
That equals £2 billion, 500 and 55 million.

A conservative MP on the Home affairs select committee asked Suella Braverman how a 16 year old assylum seeker fleeing from an African country in turmoil could legally apply to join his sibling already settled in the UK. She could not answer the question as for refugees like him there is NO LEGAL WAY they could enter the UK.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzRmXt8hMqY

(24 mins from the start)

MaizieD

Forsythia

No point in answering some people that disagree with you when you can’t offer an alternative but criticism you mean.

However, others have offered solutions to this thorny problem and let us hope somebody somewhere listens and acts on them.

This subject has been discussed a number of times before on this forum. All the things that Siope detailed have been talked about before on those threads. I'm sorry if you were unaware of this. It'snot new to many posters on this forum and it may have been assumed that it's all been said before and didn't need repeating.

It feels like groundhog day at times.

It may be Groundhog Day to you but I have never felt the need to read or comment on these issues before.

Billions wasted on this hotel scheme could be better funnelled into the NHS, schools, to name but two.

Do you have evidence for the 'billions'? I feel it's possibly an overestimate.

OTOH, there has been £millions spent on the Rwanda scheme which is being challenged in the courts and is likely to be judged to be illegal.

Forsythia

No point in answering some people that disagree with you when you can’t offer an alternative but criticism you mean.

However, others have offered solutions to this thorny problem and let us hope somebody somewhere listens and acts on them.

This subject has been discussed a number of times before on this forum. All the things that Siope detailed have been talked about before on those threads. I'm sorry if you were unaware of this. It'snot new to many posters on this forum and it may have been assumed that it's all been said before and didn't need repeating.

It feels like groundhog day at times.

I don’t vote Conservative. But as a taxpayer I am an interested party in what my hard earned money goes on. If that makes me a ‘xenophobe’ I am happy to be one.

Billions wasted on this hotel scheme could be better funnelled into the NHS, schools, to name but two.

These migrants should all be working and contributing. No ifs or buts. The majority are men. They should be out working, contributing. As those of us who fund them living here are doing.

If anyone is interested in the piece on PM I referred to above, it is talking about the just released Migration Advisory Committee Report.

You can find it at www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001g35j and it is about 34.50 minutes.

To repeat (and to agree with DaisyAnne) this government will not implement the safe route proposals, because they (the government) rely on creating tension, fostering divisiveness, and fomenting culture wars, to keep the right-wing of their party and voters on board.

No, Forsythia. No point in rising to the xenophobes.

I don't think anything I wrote would be acceptable to them but that pleases me.

No point in answering some people that disagree with you when you can’t offer an alternative but criticism you mean.

However, others have offered solutions to this thorny problem and let us hope somebody somewhere listens and acts on them.

Siope

^Agree 100%. We need a harsh system like that of Australia whereby anyone who arrived via an illegal route will never be allowed to settle here. These people should stay in their own country to work or fight for better conditions.^

How does this work when

-there are no illegal routes for asylum seekers, as there are no illegal asylum seekers;
- the law says asylum seekers (with a minuscule number of exceptions) have to physically be in the UK at the time they claim asylum;
- there are, therefore, no legal ways for the majority of asylum seekers to be assessed anywhere but the UK.

Which was where we started on this thread but it bears repeating when we get the comments like those quoted.

Generally no point in answering some people but that doesn't stop this being an interesting subject.

I have just been listening to a chap on the News suggesting that, as most asylum seekers end up getting asylum we should be letting them work much earlier than we do. This seems sensible to me. He certainly has some good ideas; he was from one of the organisations that supports asylum seekers so, quite usefully, knows what he is talking about.

He did say that "if" Sunak can get the process moving quicker it would be good, but he did seem to doubt that he would be able to. I do too. They seem unable to organise any processing system. People claiming PIP - so disabled - have been told that they must still get claims in on time but that the government has given itself a year in which to process them. No business could run in this way. Saying they are incompetent is not name calling; it's a truth.

Agree 100%. We need a harsh system like that of Australia whereby anyone who arrived via an illegal route will never be allowed to settle here. These people should stay in their own country to work or fight for better conditions.

How does this work when

-there are no illegal routes for asylum seekers, as there are no illegal asylum seekers;
- the law says asylum seekers (with a minuscule number of exceptions) have to physically be in the UK at the time they claim asylum;
- there are, therefore, no legal ways for the majority of asylum seekers to be assessed anywhere but the UK.

Siope
Your views and comments are articulate and interesting. Let’s hope your ideas are implemented.
It could lead to a lessening of tensions and an improvement in the system.
Billions being spent on hotels is unacceptable to any tax payer having to fund this. It inflames tensions.

Forsythia:

You’re very welcome. It’s a solution that has been proposed by every refugee organisation in the UK for some time.

It would, however, mean this government could not pander to the anti-immigration, anti-human rights wing of its own party, so it prefers to produce undeliverable and illegal policies, waste money, and create unnecessary risks for desperate people.

couldn't be more direct if I tried. They are a mess. In a recent poll the words used to describe the Conservatives were 'corrupt', 'liars', 'idiot' 'rich' and even swear words like 'cr*p' and 'sh*t', along with 'inept', pathetic', shambles and incompetent.

That’s not offering a solution though is it. Calling the government names doesn’t address the problem of taxpayers money being spent on people who contribute nothing to this country. And you still haven’t said what they should be doing unlike Siope who wrote a reasonable articulate response to the question.

Name calling is always resorted to by those who can’t answer a question.

And I say again, as a taxpayer I resent my taxes being spent in this way. I’m entitled to say it and I will say it.

Why is it acceptable for billions of money earned through taxpayers of this country to be spent on migrants who arrive having contributed nothing. Housed in hotels, 3 meals day which they complain about, free to roam around the towns and cities that they’re deposited in, nobody asked for them to be there. Meanwhile, the taxpayers are working supporting this

Agree 100%. We need a harsh system like that of Australia whereby anyone who arrived via an illegal route will never be allowed to settle here. These people should stay in their own country to work or fight for better conditions.

Forsythia

And who do you think you are DaisyAnne.you can answer the question so you resort to babbling about other things. Classic Deflection. They are wasting money that’s for sure. Tax payers money being spent on people who arrive here having contributed nothing and are instantly housed, fed, entitled to medical care etc. but you still haven’t provided an alternative to what you think this government should be doing, have you? Just criticism of them and me for asking that question.

In my OP I talked about there being no legal route etc. presumable for some reason your were unable to read that. Others have also added to the answer about how this should be done properly.

How can this be deflection? I couldn't be more direct if I tried. They are a mess. In a recent poll the words used to describe the Conservatives were 'corrupt', 'liars', 'idiot' 'rich' and even swear words like 'cr*p' and 'sh*t', along with 'inept', pathetic', shambles and incompetent.

I was only using words of the level of the last four. Quite restrained when you see what they are doing.

Siope

^That’s great. So let’s hear your solution to housing them and supporting them then.^

Safe legal routes for asylum seekers, with assessment at the point of need (ie not in the UK) would a) ensure that legitimate asylum seekers would arrive in the UK with the right to work, b) filter economic migrants and asylum seekers into the appropriate visa decision making process, c) remove the need for the majority of people smugglers, d) enable those that do arrive by what would then be an unnecessary route to be either returned (economic migrants who do not meet visa requirements) or swiftly assessed and either granted asylum or returned.

The French have offered several times to establish assessment centres in France. This would, in itself, significantly diminish the number of asylum seekers who are forced to cross the channel to claim asylum. The UK government have thus far refused this. It would appear they prefer the crossings to continue. Some may feel this is for ideological and electioneering reasons.

To be fair, it was reported that a recent meeting between Sunak and Macron focused on assessment in France, but this was not, afaik, mentioned today.

At last, an answer that spells out clearly a workable solution. Thank you for that.

Can’t not can. Typo.

And who do you think you are DaisyAnne.you can answer the question so you resort to babbling about other things. Classic Deflection. They are wasting money that’s for sure. Tax payers money being spent on people who arrive here having contributed nothing and are instantly housed, fed, entitled to medical care etc. but you still haven’t provided an alternative to what you think this government should be doing, have you? Just criticism of them and me for asking that question.

Forsythia

No DaisyAnne that’s not good enough. You provide an answer since you posted after my message. Tell us all, we are waiting. Why is it acceptable for billions of money earned through taxpayers of this country to be spent on migrants who arrive having contributed nothing. Housed in hotels, 3 meals day which they complain about, free to roam around the towns and cities that they’re deposited in, nobody asked for them to be there. Meanwhile, the taxpayers are working supporting this. You might be for it but I am not.

Who do you think you are with your "Not good enough"? That is my choice to make, not yours.

You appear concerned about the billions spent because this motley crew lack management skills. Who said it is acceptable if it doesn't work for the country and those seeking asylum? I certainly didn't. They have wasted money every step of the way. They are not to be trusted with the economy and have spent 12 years proving that true.

It is the government's job to govern. That includes management of all areas run by the said government, not neglect of them. If they can't do it, they should go. Hopefully, they will. I don't think anyone can do worse.

(Just heard unemployment is expected to rise. No surprise there. They are the most incompetent government I have seen.)

That’s great. So let’s hear your solution to housing them and supporting them then.

Safe legal routes for asylum seekers, with assessment at the point of need (ie not in the UK) would a) ensure that legitimate asylum seekers would arrive in the UK with the right to work, b) filter economic migrants and asylum seekers into the appropriate visa decision making process, c) remove the need for the majority of people smugglers, d) enable those that do arrive by what would then be an unnecessary route to be either returned (economic migrants who do not meet visa requirements) or swiftly assessed and either granted asylum or returned.

The French have offered several times to establish assessment centres in France. This would, in itself, significantly diminish the number of asylum seekers who are forced to cross the channel to claim asylum. The UK government have thus far refused this. It would appear they prefer the crossings to continue. Some may feel this is for ideological and electioneering reasons.

To be fair, it was reported that a recent meeting between Sunak and Macron focused on assessment in France, but this was not, afaik, mentioned today.

No DaisyAnne that’s not good enough. You provide an answer since you posted after my message. Tell us all, we are waiting. Why is it acceptable for billions of money earned through taxpayers of this country to be spent on migrants who arrive having contributed nothing. Housed in hotels, 3 meals day which they complain about, free to roam around the towns and cities that they’re deposited in, nobody asked for them to be there. Meanwhile, the taxpayers are working supporting this. You might be for it but I am not.

That does not deserve and answer. You are not in government and neither am I. However, 12 years of mismanagement is quite enough for me and, it appears, the majority in this country.