New immigration bill - how on earth will it work?

Yep. Full steam ahead to the election.

maddyone

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

Hi maddyone I posted before I'd read you.

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.

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?

That should read numbers IN small boats.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

It was stated on the BBC news last night that the majority of migrants turning up illegally on our shores last year were from Albania, a European country not at war.
In other words the majority of these illegal migrants are economic migrants, not asylum seekers.
I do hope this plan is successful as the current situation is intolerable, but as we all know there will be fierce opposition, especially from the ECHR.
If only we could extract ourselves from that, the plan would stand a good chance of success.

It’s all about deterrence isn’t it?
Once the message filters through that those who turn up here illegally will never be given permission to stay, then the business model of the people smugglers will be broken.

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

Whitewavemark2

James O'Brien

“Public interest in ‘small boats’ grows according to the scale & tone of coverage. Tory politicians & Tory media gleefully & cynically exploiting some of the most desperate people on the planet to distract voters from the mess they’ve made of our country. It’s so crass & obvious.”

He is usually spot on and that quote sounds just about right.

There is no legal way for anyone to get into this country other than risk their lives in small boats on the sea.

Everything seemed to work perfectly well prior to about 1995.

Dont even know what changed.

I'm afraid that concentration camps was one of the first things that came to my mind when I read the proposals. Government is proposing to concentrate them in one or two places instead of dispersing them around the UK, as at present.

Shall we call them 'internment camps'? Is that less emotive?

The huts will be containing people against their will, the guards will not be for their protection but to keep them imprisoned.

The solution is pathetically obvious.

1. Get the safe routes established - work with France by setting up application centres on the French/English channel border.

2. The Home office needs a complete reorganisation as it has been dysfunctional and incompetent for years.

3. Throw everything at clearing the backlog.

4. Establish a recognised working practice and for every person accepted as a refugee by helping them to find work and get established in the U.K. as useful members of our society.

Whitewavemark2

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2

GrannyGravy13

It was said on breakfast news that they will be held in two RAF Bases.

This scheme could only work if there were ways to apply for asylum in the U.K. before attempting to get here.

Concentration camps are not a good look.

concentration camps are not a good look

Emotive language is not helpful.

So how would you describe a camp with huts surrounded by barbed wire and guards on the entrances?

I can imagine what the world will make of it.

But honestly it is never going to happen is it!

We are a Forces Family (many generations)

RAF/Army camps are not comparable to concentration camps.

They will have guards on the entrances as every Forces Base has whatever the Country/wherever the Base.

The guards in the U.K. are for the protection of those inside a consequence of bombings by the IRA and terrorism.

Where they are housed is not the problem, it’s the length of time for their cases to be heard and the glaringly obvious fact that the people traffickers are getting extremely rich on the backs of desperate people.

Arrest and detain the traffickers, sort out an office/offices abroad where people can apply for asylum without risking their lives.

Katie59

It won’t work unless they can stop migrants taking to the water from France.
Once they get here the migrant lawyers will make sure Sunak’s plan is thwarted, and locking up tens of thousands in camps long term is not an option.

It won’t work because Sunak’s plan is fundamentally unworkable.

It won’t work unless they can stop migrants taking to the water from France.
Once they get here the migrant lawyers will make sure Sunak’s plan is thwarted, and locking up tens of thousands in camps long term is not an option.

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2

GrannyGravy13

It was said on breakfast news that they will be held in two RAF Bases.

This scheme could only work if there were ways to apply for asylum in the U.K. before attempting to get here.

Concentration camps are not a good look.

concentration camps are not a good look

Emotive language is not helpful.

So how would you describe a camp with huts surrounded by barbed wire and guards on the entrances?

I can imagine what the world will make of it.

But honestly it is never going to happen is it!

Stop the Boats and Get The Votes

I personally think that if Sunak and Suella Braverman's plan actually works the Red Wall voters will vote Conservative again.

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.

Whitewavemark2

GrannyGravy13

It was said on breakfast news that they will be held in two RAF Bases.

This scheme could only work if there were ways to apply for asylum in the U.K. before attempting to get here.

Concentration camps are not a good look.

concentration camps are not a good look

Emotive language is not helpful.