New immigration bill - how on earth will it work?

It’s a complete mess. I don’t know if the new proposals will work or not but I strongly suspect not. Things have certainly changed since my childhood when one person would defect from behind the iron curtain and claim asylum and it was major news, a really big item.

But 40% of the people arriving on boats ARE eventually given refugee status. Ie genuine asylum seekers.

Whitewavemark2 above your post of 09:47:12 exactly hits the spot as to "ways forward".

Its a calculating vote winner not a practical solution.

I know Wyllow but I just commenting on how things have changed.

Australia did it a few years ago, despite the inevitable opposition of course.

It is quite different.

In Australia, once the asylum seekers application has been accepted, and they achieved refugee status, they were allowed into Australia.

Those transported to Rwanda will have no route back to the U.K. whatever their status.

There is nothing illegal about seeking asylum. And there are no safe routes to the UK for the majority of refugees. The majority of asylum seekers are not from Albania. Not all refugees are created by war.

There are entirely straightforward ways of resolving the issue of people smuggling across the channel by setting up safe routes and processing applications abroad.

This government prefers not to do that, as it sees that this issue can be framed in various ways (illegal, crisis, immigration, lefty-lawyers, UK as a victim of international law etc) that will appeal to its own right-wing and (other) xenophobes, racists and British-exceptionalists.

But 40% of the people arriving on boats ARE eventually given refugee status. Ie genuine asylum seekers.

The last figure I saw, Wyllow, was that some 85% of applicants are given asylum. Plus a few more on appeal.

I have also read that some Albanians are granted asylum.

Albanians can apply for asylum. 13.000 Albanians did so last year, but that’s quite different to them being the largest group crossing on the boats. Don’t know how many will be successful in their applications.

They will be waiting a long time to find out as processing times are the longest they’ve ever been due to under-resourcing (determination by House of Commons Committee, not me).

The Home Office don’t separate those who come by boat and those who arrive by other means, but the overall success rate for asylum seekers is 75% at first application, and close to 90% on appeal.

So in 2019 something like 2000 people arrived by boat.

Since then the Tory party has closed off every safe route possible and the numbers of small boats have risen to about 45k per year.

It is the Tories who hav3 created this problem.

The question is

Why?

That should read numbers IN small boats.

They are mostly economic migrants, not asylum seekers.
My paramedic daughter has fairly regularly attended hostel/hotels housing people whilst awaiting their fate.
The vast majority are male. They avoid stating where they might really come from - it’s always Afghanistan or Syria lately. Many of the callers don’t have an ambulance worthy condition but wish to seek swift treatment for chronic conditions ~as they believe the UK will provide them with immediate treatment~.
They tell her what they are told - so many mistruths - about what they can achieve in the UK.
Some have been rather inappropriate towards a female only crew, so much so they avoid sending just girls now.
It’s all very well sitting in your own home and protesting the treatment of such migrants, whether that be through a soft heart or a political idealogy. I do believe unless we do have direct contact, we cannot truly understand.
Another question is why they don’t board a (much cheaper) flight and appeal asylum at Heathrow or wherever. Because they can’t as they’ve no realistic claim nor papers to support it.
One truth is that the influx is causing a substantial drain on this country’s finances. We cannot afford to go on housing, clothing, feeding and given spending money to thousands of people. Every penny spent on them is taxpayer paid monies not being re-spent for the benefit of the taxpayer.
There’s no perfect solution - maybe what’s being suggested is harsh, but perhaps they’re hoping to have a little less accepted as a way forward.
But to deter the unsafe passage across winter seas must be a priority for humanitarian reasons, surely?

The question is

Why?

The answer surely is, Brexity government, Priti Patel and now Suella Braverman. And pandering to the racists who voted to leave the EU.

maddyone

I know Wyllow but I just commenting on how things have changed.

Hi maddyone I posted before I'd read you.

Yep. Full steam ahead to the election.

They are mostly economic migrants, not asylum seekers.

The percentage whose application for asylum is granted tell a different story.

If it is correct that asylum is granted to 40% as stated upthread, that would appear to indicate that 60% are not genuine asylum seekers.

Germanshepherdsmum

If it is correct that asylum is granted to 40% as stated upthread, that would appear to indicate that 60% are not genuine asylum seekers.

It isn’t correct.

Patsy70

I realise that I am being naive here, but surely the evil people traffickers should be identified. There is never any mention of who they are.

Maybe because of the half-hearted handling by the French authorities? Not operating on our land, so there’s little we can actually do about them.

MaizieD

^The question is^

Why?

The answer surely is, Brexity government, Priti Patel and now Suella Braverman. And pandering to the racists who voted to leave the EU.

Disgraceful to refer to anyone who voted leave as a racist.

There were plenty of them, Sago. I'm not saying that they were all racist, but racists voted Leave...

-And pandering to the racists who voted to leave the EU~

For goodness sake. Fundamentally, crossing in a dinghy is highly unsafe. That should stop. I don’t see how anyone could argue with that stated aim.

MaizieD

There were plenty of them, Sago. I'm not saying that they were all racist, but racists voted Leave...

Same old trope trotted out…

ENO they could stop (or vastly reduce) the people smuggling/small boats tomorrow by setting up safe routes at the places where refugees are. They have made a purely political choice not to do so.

ExperiencedNotOld

Patsy70

I realise that I am being naive here, but surely the evil people traffickers should be identified. There is never any mention of who they are.

Maybe because of the half-hearted handling by the French authorities? Not operating on our land, so there’s little we can actually do about them.

Well, it would seem that the assumption that the people smugglers are not entering the U.K. is wrong.

According to a report by the BBC, the smugglers actually live and operate in the U.K.

Whitewavemark2

ExperiencedNotOld

Patsy70

I realise that I am being naive here, but surely the evil people traffickers should be identified. There is never any mention of who they are.

Maybe because of the half-hearted handling by the French authorities? Not operating on our land, so there’s little we can actually do about them.

Well, it would seem that the assumption that the people smugglers are not entering the U.K. is wrong.

According to a report by the BBC, the smugglers actually live and operate in the U.K.

I saw that report Whitewavemark2 my immediate thought was if the authorities know they are living/operating in/from the U.K. why the hell are they not behind bars?

I think you have hit the nail on the head. Migrants and trying to stop them attracts votes.