Another Brexit Bonus!

These people are NOT illegal migrants. They are refugees who have the legal right to seek asylum in this country.

Give them a recognised legal route to the UK. Accept their claims for asylum and ensure that they are processed in months, not years.

So easy to say, when you are geographically the furthest away, to say they should all stay in first country, or stop in the last but one, hey ! Easy peasy! Let the rest of the world look after those Afghans who worked for us, and we abandonned behind. Hurrah.

varian some are illegal immigrants, others are asylum seekers. It is by no means true that all those coming into this country illegally are assylum seekers.

M0nica

varian some are illegal immigrants, others are asylum seekers. It is by no means true that all those coming into this country illegally are assylum seekers.

But the 'illegality' of their entry can only be proven after their application for asylum has been processed and they have been rejected.

It's something to do with the 'rule of law' and 'innocent until proved guilty', I believe.

If you enter any country and ask for asylum, you are, by definition, an asylum seeker.

That's what the words mean. 🙄

That's what the words mean. 🙄

We have a few Humpty Dumpties on here, volver...

Maizie, sorry what is your point? Of course the exact status of people coming into Britain on little boats and lorries cannot be defined until investigated. I would have thought that was obvious, but is someone who is an economic migrant going to turn up at a immigration centre in France to go through the vetting process and when they are turned down, dutifully retun to their country of origin? Of course they won't, they will simply resort to illegal entry in little boats or in the backs of lorries, so the idea that we can sort this problem out by processing them in France is an illusion.

But even if we were able to totally stop every single illegal entry into the UK, it would barely dint the number of immigrants coming into the country each year, because the majority of immigrants come in to the country entirely legally to fill all the jpb gaps in the economy, especially in the health services.

M0nica

*Maizie*, sorry what is your point? Of course the exact status of people coming into Britain on little boats and lorries cannot be defined until investigated. I would have thought that was obvious, but is someone who is an economic migrant going to turn up at a immigration centre in France to go through the vetting process and when they are turned down, dutifully retun to their country of origin? Of course they won't, they will simply resort to illegal entry in little boats or in the backs of lorries, so the idea that we can sort this problem out by processing them in France is an illusion.

But even if we were able to totally stop every single illegal entry into the UK, it would barely dint the number of immigrants coming into the country each year, because the majority of immigrants come in to the country entirely legally to fill all the jpb gaps in the economy, especially in the health services.

I don't understand why asylum seekers cannot be processed here with some degree of efficiency - though this from the Migration Observatory ( Centre on Migration, Policy and Society {COMPAS} at the University of Oxford) - gives a clue:

A decline in the number of decisions per caseworker provides perhaps the single strongest explanation for the increase in the UK’s asylum backlog; as outlined above, if caseworkers had made the same average number of decisions per year as were made in the mid-2010s, then the backlog would be substantially smaller today.

Available data and evidence do not provide a definitive explanation for declines in the number of decisions per caseworker per year. However, there are several plausible explanations. Five are provided here.

1. Administrative problems and high staff turnover

A 2021 inspection of the UK’s asylum casework by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) highlighted a number of issues in the UK’s asylum processing. These included inadequate training for decision-makers; a reliance on Excel spreadsheets; low morale, and, relatedly, high staff turnover.

The report notes that it can take an average of 12–18 months for an asylum decision-maker to become “fully proficient” but that it was unlikely that caseworkers would stay in the role beyond 24 months. According to a letter from a Home Office civil servant to the Home Affairs Committee, the average annual turnover of Home Office caseworkers between 2018/19 and 2020/21 was 33%. A further letter from the immigration minister said that the attrition rate for decision-makers in the year from April 2021 to March 2022 was 46%. When caseworker numbers are increasing (Figure 6, above), it follows that a higher share of caseworkers will be new recruits, and so the average number of decisions per caseworker can be expected to fall.

The ICIBI noted that the low morale that drives high staff turnover resulted from pressure to meet targets, the perception among decision-makers that management was concerned more about the quantity rather than the quality of decisions, and a lack of career development.

Concerns about high staff turnover and the quality of training were also reported in a previous immigration inspector’s report of the asylum system in 2017.

2. The end of the six-month ‘customer service’ standard

On 1 April 2014, the Home Office introduced an internal target, or ‘customer service standard’, to process 98% of “straightforward” cases within six months. This followed the publication in October 2013 of a report by the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee into the UK’s asylum system, which criticised the time taken for asylum applicants to receive a decision.

The six-month service standard was abandoned in January 2019. According to a report on asylum casework by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, the lack of a service standard has “exacerbated delays”. On 20 September 2022, the Home Office said that it is working to reintroduce a service standard.

... high staff turnover, low morale - leading to casework being done increasingly by new recruits. Caseworkers feeling that management was concerned more about the quantity rather than the quality of decisions, and a lack of career development.

It's not an unusual pattern with government agencies - "Never Mind The Quality, Feel the Width"... 1967 British TV sitcom.

Dickens, because this government have made a political choice to under-resource the system (alongside refusing to set up safe routes abroad) in order to feed into their divisive and inaccurate rhetoric around immigration.

Also (not in response to Dickens) it’s amazing how even a discussion about a technical, bureaucratic facet of Brexit and trade treaties reverts, on GN, to being about immigration.

How flipping difficult is it to understand that entry to the UK is not in itself illegal? Unless somebody has been individually banned from entering the UK or has overstayed a visa, there is no such thing no as an illegal immigrant, if the person applies for asylum, even if there's no chance the claim will be accepted.

Siope

*Dickens*, because this government have made a political choice to under-resource the system (alongside refusing to set up safe routes abroad) in order to feed into their divisive and inaccurate rhetoric around immigration.

Also (not in response to Dickens) it’s amazing how even a discussion about a technical, bureaucratic facet of Brexit and trade treaties reverts, on GN, to being about immigration.

I wonder what it says about the subliminal messaging going on.

That's very pertinent growstuff.

Maizie, sorry what is your point? Of course the exact status of people coming into Britain on little boats and lorries cannot be defined until investigated.

My only point was that by saying that people are coming to the UK illegally, as I quote below, you are prejudging their immigration status.

^ It is by no means true that all those coming into this country illegally are assylum seekers.^

Processing in France would greatly reduce the numbers trying to enter the UK by way of small boat crossings. Figures vary, but somewhere in the region of 60 - 70% of asylum claims are upheld.

Don't you think that reducing the numbers trying to cross the channel in small boats, and contributing to the traffickers' incomes, would be a good start?

growstuff

How flipping difficult is it to understand that entry to the UK is not in itself illegal? Unless somebody has been individually banned from entering the UK or has overstayed a visa, there is no such thing no as an illegal immigrant, if the person applies for asylum, even if there's no chance the claim will be accepted.

Yes. Frankly I’ve given up.

growstuff

How flipping difficult is it to understand that entry to the UK is not in itself illegal? Unless somebody has been individually banned from entering the UK or has overstayed a visa, there is no such thing no as an illegal immigrant, if the person applies for asylum, even if there's no chance the claim will be accepted.

The fact remains if you enter the UK without a visa you will be arrested by the police and sent back, if you claim asylum you will be locked up until your claim is processed.

Katie59

growstuff

How flipping difficult is it to understand that entry to the UK is not in itself illegal? Unless somebody has been individually banned from entering the UK or has overstayed a visa, there is no such thing no as an illegal immigrant, if the person applies for asylum, even if there's no chance the claim will be accepted.

The fact remains if you enter the UK without a visa you will be arrested by the police and sent back, if you claim asylum you will be locked up until your claim is processed.

But that's not the same as being illegal! It would be a different matter if an asylum seeker's claim were to be rejected and he/she were to abscond or if a person were to land on UK soil and then "disappear" - I'm not claiming that doesn't happen, but those arriving on a boat (or however) without a visa and then claiming asylum are not illegal. It's the normalising of the word which annoys me.

No, I think you'll find that's not true.

Asylum seekers are not locked up under UK/English/whatever law.

So it does seem quite hard for some to understand, yes.

That was for Katie59

Thanks for that volver. I was going to check because I didn't think they were. Otherwise, people wouldn't moan about them hanging around on the streets.

The people who think asylum seekers are locked up...

Who do you think it is living in the so-called "4* hotels" ???

there are NO illegal immigrants ,the only thing stopping them is there is no route for them to come to claim asylum.IF the tories could see that and process applications before people need to take to boats the problem would be solved.
The UK as a whole NEEDS immigration and we are refusing entry to people with qualifications we need...or at the other end of the scale people who will do jobs our kids think are beneath them .Because they all feel they are worthy of the "university experience" sadly loads of them dont use that to get jobs either and still end up in shops or restaurants and offices.

Whitewavemark2

growstuff

How flipping difficult is it to understand that entry to the UK is not in itself illegal? Unless somebody has been individually banned from entering the UK or has overstayed a visa, there is no such thing no as an illegal immigrant, if the person applies for asylum, even if there's no chance the claim will be accepted.

Yes. Frankly I’ve given up.

as have I. Even bold capital letters doesn't work.

Can’t see the connection between the OP and what you seem to be discussing now. Why the absolute obsession with migrants and visitors ?

As regards "illegal immigrants" it certainly doesn't help that the government insist on using that expression whenever they refer to migration. Makes me wonder whether they have all been primed to do so. Did I hear one conservative MP use the inflammatory phrase " they are breaking into our country"?
Shocking.

volver3

No, I think you'll find that's not true.

Asylum seekers are not locked up under UK/English/whatever law.

So it does seem quite hard for some to understand, yes.

That’s what Kay Burley said to a government minister the other week. She said if they were doing something illegal you could arrest them but, as it’s not illegal you aren’t. The minister had no answer to it.