New immigration bill - how on earth will it work?

Oh, Growstuff, two minds but a single thought...

At least we can eat the turnips (which I don't actually like...)

Last time I looked, Border Force had one cutter for the whole of the east coast. What will happen is that the smugglers will make greater use of remote drop off points. They won't get caught, although the asylum seekers themselves will probably get picked up eventually. The National Crime Agency is responsible for liaison with the French and Belgian governments on smuggling, but has had its budget cut. Braverman might as well call this new initiative "Operation Canute".

MaizieD

Oh, Growstuff, two minds but a single thought...

At least we can eat the turnips (which I don't actually like...)

I'm not a huge fan either. I would imagine turnip missiles could cause some damage.

Well it didn't take long before the usual faux outrage mentioning concentration camps and Nazis and a few racist comments thrown in re Brexit and those who voted for it, pathetic.

Nazis? Who mentioned the Nazis?

Concentration camps. Large fenced settlements where people who were not wanted in the country were taken to. A British idea, first used during the Boer War in S. Africa. Copied in Germany in the 1930s and WW2. Tell me how the proposed camps to house 1,000s of unwanted immigrants are any different, Maudi?.

Leave voting racists were all over social media in 2016 and are still around.

Just being factual.

Leaving any criminal element to one side I do wonder if some of the other asylum seekers wish they hadn't come. Once here, specially with no papers, you can't just up and leave if you don't like it as you can on the Continent, you are stuck, ok you may have a pleasant hotel room but then what. We have had a few instances in Kent of people trying to get on lorries to go back but they are mostly found. Somebody needs to do something particularly as the native population are getting restless.

Whitewavemark2

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

Aaah. Obviously the wrong sort of votes, eh WM2?

This bill won't work. Umpteen reasons why not.

I wish I had a fiver for every time I hear a politician say “enough is enough”.

Putting migrants up in hotels is costing us, the UK taxpayers, £7 million A DAY.

Just let that amount sink in. I think it’s mind boggling. An enormous sum of money.
Just think of what else we could be doing with that money.

The UK needs to get tough on this. It’s all wrong. And I can’t believe legal aid is being used to fight cases in our Courts.

I’m sure Asylum ventures could be set up overseas but that would not stop thousands of illegal economic migrants trying to cross the channel.

Katie59

I’m sure Asylum ventures could be set up overseas but that would not stop thousands of illegal economic migrants trying to cross the channel.

Asylum centers

I think it would. It’s called a deterrent for a reason.

MaizieD

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

I voted leave.
I am no racist.

To those complaining about the costs of refugees they want to work. This government will not lift the restrictions on working for asylum seekers. In spite of a petition signed by over 180,000people. In spite of refugees asking to work, In spite of businesses (particularly hospitality) saying they need the workers . Read www.refugee-action.org.uk/lift-the-ban/

The absolute irony is that none of the issue with the small boats would have happened if Brexit had not happened, and yet it was sold to the believers as the panacea for the immigrant issue.

Sago

MaizieD

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

I voted leave.
I am no racist.

Where have I said that you were a racist? You've even quoted the post in which I clarified my statement.
You're claiming imaginary victimisation.

Whitewavemark2

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.

Exactly.

Neither establishing legal safe routes nor setting up application centres before bringing in these laws will lead to many genuine asylum applicants still coming in small boats, and then losing any right to asylum in the future. This will be a death sentence for many.

Setting the routes and application centres up BEFORE bringing the law in will destroy the people smuggling business (I cannot believe that anyone in government doesn't know this).
It will also mean that fewer asylum seekers will be unfairly treated as long as the backlog is cleared quickly and the Home Office becomes a great deal more efficient.

And what a great idea, Whitewavemark's number 4 suggestion is!

Currently Britain is metaphorically cutting off its nose to spite its face; we are short of workers in many areas, especially Care, the NHS and agriculture. Solve it by spending money , not on incredibly expensive schemes, like Rwanda, hotels and the ever increasing 'wall' building around the UK, but sorting out the Home Office, speeding up the asylum system, and helping those people arriving find jobs.

Cannot see myself how this can be managed. Something needs to be done.

Adam Wagner - barrister

So according to this the government will be declaring the new bill will not be compatible with the UK’s human rights obligations - meaning the govt had failed to come up with a policy which works under our own existing law. Unworkable, and the govt clearly knows it

So following in from Bravermans admission that the new bill does not comply with U.K. law because of the UKs HR obligations……………

The U.K. can’t leave the ECHR because:
It guarantees the Good Friday Agreement and because the U.K. will never get a US trade deal if it does leave the ECHR.

This bill is never going to work.

What is going to happen is there will be a huge amount of time and money spent on a useless bill in the hope that they can spin it out until the next election and convince the voter that it is a goer.

Whitewavemark2

The absolute irony is that none of the issue with the small boats would have happened if Brexit had not happened, and yet it was sold to the believers as the panacea for the immigrant issue.

Explain you logic here please.

I see the mention of Brexit as another desperate attempt to mention your very favourite subject, and that alone.
Criminal gangs saw that giving people the option of a boat (rather than trying to hide in a lorry) was lucrative. As I said earlier, they’re told many lies about life in the UK. And hang safety! There is nothing more to it that that.

Sure - jobs in care or the NHS with no spoken English. Jobs in agriculture when temperature sensitive due to being raised in warmer climes. Dream on….

MaizieD

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

I am not claiming imaginary victimisation.
I’m asking that you don’t use such sweeping statements.

Aaah. Obviously the wrong sort of votes, eh WM2?

Wrong sort of humans, if, after listening to Braverman’s speech this morning, read the Bill (which I’ve now done), done some basic maths on the likely financial and human consequences if it was enacted, they support this.

To respond to some other posts. There’s no evidence that deterrents work; in fact, deterrents seem to just increase risky journeys (including the small boats) asylumwelfarework.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/asylum-seeker-pull-factors-working-paper.pdf

The cost of maintaining an asylum seeker is £107 a day - the UK currently has 2513 asylum seekers detention capacity. That’s 2513 x 107 = £268,891 per day, which is a little way short of £7m.

If the new Bill was enacted, it would be impossible to return/deport/resettle every asylum seeker as they arrived. They’d all have to be detained, as the new Bill criminalises them.

Last year the number of asylum seekers was 45000 (higher than normal because of the Ukrainian refugees). Assuming that number again though, for the sake of argument, we’d need 17x the current detention capacity, at a cost (ignoring inflation) of £ 1757,475,000 per year - that’s one billion seven hundred fifty-seven million four hundred seventy-five thousand pounds. Per year. (Stats credit to Lucy Mayblin of Sheffield University)

So all those who think this Bill is the best thing since sliced bread: what are you willing to see sacrificed to pay for it?

To be fair, non-detained asylum seekers have a cost too, until they can work. Still won’t he £7m a day.