Let’s get real about migration

Oreo

Or catnip😄

That was to GG13 and not you Cossy 🤭

Oreo

Important to have all the facts StripeyGran isn’t it?

www.gov.scot/publications/extending-right-work-asylum-seekers-scotland-evaluation-analysis-policy-options/pages/8/

There you go Oreo. Facts. Enjoy.

😊

Oreo

Or catnip😄

It's a procrastination tool.

You know you have far more important things to do but you don't really want to tackle them 😀

Grantonow
It wasn’t just the lowest socioeconomic group that lost out.
When the borders opened up in 2004 I had friends who had a very successful office fitting company.
Semi skilled migrants started bidding for this work showing would be customers fake photos of their work.
Long story short my friends company folded. It had taken him years to build up this team of professionals.
He did have a laugh when he heard that a contract he bid for ( Google offices) in Ireland a company he had done work for had hired these cowboys.
The work was so bad they phoned my friend to ask if they could put it right.
He informed them that his highly skilled team had found other work.

LizzieDrip
If the government enabled people to apply for asylum from another country, the boat crossings might stop tomorrow!

Why doesn’t the government do it - I have no idea🤷‍♀️

I’m not against immigration per se.
It benefits the UK and the immigrants. But the continuous arrival of people, on boats or by legal means needs regulation.

Pros and cons?

In an ideal world, if the government allowed people to apply for asylum from another country, they would have control over the numbers arriving.

They could lay down ground rules e.g. about number of dependents, qualifications, speaking English, or even take up some of the much admired Danish rules for immigrants.

These people could arrive properly documented, photographed and fingerprinted, already knowing that their application had been accepted.

They could immediately and legally take up jobs, which means they would be paying tax and NI contributing to the country in which they are arriving, be refused benefits if they don’t work, and their employers would also be contributing.

They would benefit and we as a country would benefit.

Also, the countries they pass through would be relieved to know that these immigrants were not their problem.

In return, they could move into the superfluity of accommodation we have here, sign up for schools, including a free breakfast, sign up with a doctor and a dentist, and get hospital appointments, etc. etc.

BUT the government (whichever government) would be held responsible and undoubtedly criticised for the growing number arriving in our island.

They would be challenged about the fact that people who have lived here all their lives, bought houses, worked and saved, would be jumped on by the chancellor, seeking ever more opportunities to penalise them for their efforts in order to fund already overstretched facilities to accommodate the growing numbers of immigrants as well.

LizzieDrip
You’re right when you say it only might stop the boats.
Do you think it would, and if it, why not?

GrannyGravy13

StripeyGran

GrannyGravy13

StripeyGran

*In Portugal, asylum seekers have the right to work from the moment their asylum application is lodged and registered, as confirmed by an amendment to the Asylum Act in 2022*

They do have to wait until they receive ^a declaration of application^

Gosh , you really are on it this morning. Well done you.

My entire house is currently a building site, I am confined to the kitchen until I go out to the hairdressers.

GN is like opium to the bored…

Well you are on top form whatever the reason. I'm sitting here waiting for a fridge freezer delivery not knowing when....I cant compete with your reason though.

Yes, last nights Yoga encounter said it all. To find yourself on the wavelength of someone from Africa just like that - because we "clicked" makes a nonsense that "they" are "them" other to us. We are all human beings, or has this been overlooked?

And we had find with language. she told me a bit of hers, I gave her useful words back.

Cossy

www.infomigrants.net/en/post/60049/channel-crossings-why-britain-cannot-simply-send-back-migrants

This helps explain the “why” around small boats being turned around and sent back to France, it’s not just about UK law, that is preventing us “shipping them straight back to France”

It's quite obvious that Brexit prevents the UK from returning some asylum seekers to France or another EU country under the Dublin rules. Well done, Brexeteers. You messed up.

Grantanow
It's quite obvious that Brexit prevents the UK from returning some asylum seekers to France or another EU country under the Dublin rules. Well done, Brexeteers. You messed up.

And an equally sarcastic well done to those who didn’t not bother to turn out and vote, which allowed the yes vote to win. 👏👏

I just wish people had read the link at the beginning before posting. It would be good to have a broader debate about migration numbers and how to reduce them, rather than the obsession with asylum seekers, who make up 5% of total migrants, always being the point to which discussion returns.

I did read it.

It’s easier to focus on the asylum seekers in boats because we’re given exact numbers.

However, reading that the small number (How long has over 1000 been a small number?) is only 5% of the total is even less reassuring or more worrying.

Mollygo

LizzieDrip
If the government enabled people to apply for asylum from another country, the boat crossings might stop tomorrow!

Why doesn’t the government do it - I have no idea🤷‍♀️

I’m not against immigration per se.
It benefits the UK and the immigrants. But the continuous arrival of people, on boats or by legal means needs regulation.

Pros and cons?

In an ideal world, if the government allowed people to apply for asylum from another country, they would have control over the numbers arriving.

They could lay down ground rules e.g. about number of dependents, qualifications, speaking English, or even take up some of the much admired Danish rules for immigrants.

These people could arrive properly documented, photographed and fingerprinted, already knowing that their application had been accepted.

They could immediately and legally take up jobs, which means they would be paying tax and NI contributing to the country in which they are arriving, be refused benefits if they don’t work, and their employers would also be contributing.

They would benefit and we as a country would benefit.

Also, the countries they pass through would be relieved to know that these immigrants were not their problem.

In return, they could move into the superfluity of accommodation we have here, sign up for schools, including a free breakfast, sign up with a doctor and a dentist, and get hospital appointments, etc. etc.

BUT the government (whichever government) would be held responsible and undoubtedly criticised for the growing number arriving in our island.

They would be challenged about the fact that people who have lived here all their lives, bought houses, worked and saved, would be jumped on by the chancellor, seeking ever more opportunities to penalise them for their efforts in order to fund already overstretched facilities to accommodate the growing numbers of immigrants as well.

LizzieDrip
You’re right when you say it only might stop the boats.
Do you think it would, and if it, why not?

Mollygo I’ll address your points:

Pros
All the ‘pros’ you describe would mean that immigrants would bring value to our country - a win-win situation IMO✔️

Cons
The government is already being constantly criticised for all the things you describe, regardless of whether they are true or not. What is there to lose? And potentially there’s a lot for the country to win.

The boats
I chose the word ‘might’ very deliberately. I think, the vast majority of genuine asylum seekers who are fleeing horrendous life situations, would apply using legal visa routes if these were available, thereby eliminating most of the dangerous boat crossings.

However, there will always be a tiny minority who will still try to use an ‘illegitimate’ route, so the boat crossings may not stop completely. Far fewer boat crossings, will be much easier to deal with.

If people, who are fleeing war, are given the opportunity to enter the UK legitimately and therefore work, pay taxes, contribute - why are some people so opposed to them doing that?

What guarantee is there of

The tiny minority of over 1,000 is what worries many people.

The fact that such a tiny minority equals only 5% or that even just 1,000 equalling 5% means that the full total is 20,000, over however long a period will still be a concern.

What guarantee is there of your Far fewer boat crossings?

Mollygo

I did read it.

It’s easier to focus on the asylum seekers in boats because we’re given exact numbers.

However, reading that the small number (How long has over 1000 been a small number?) is only 5% of the total is even less reassuring or more worrying.

Sorry Mollygo, I wasn’t implying you hadn’t read it, it was just a wish that everybody had, and that we could translate that into a broader discussion, we talk about boat migrants constantly, but not about the bigger picture of migrant numbers, which is what is changing the UK.

What is your solution Mollygo to what you clearly perceive as a problem?

Someone lauded Australia's strict immigration policies.

I find that ironic, given that the only reason Australia has its current population is that white people invaded it, slaughtered vast numbers of its original inhabitants and destroyed the culture and lives of those that survived. Remember the £10 poms? Only white settlers were welcomed into Australia at that time and the original inhabitants continued to be completely outnumbered and dispossessed.

Maybe we should count ourselves comparatively lucky.

What guarantee is there of your Far fewer boat crossings?

Of course, there are no absolute guarantees about most things in life.

However, if people can claim asylum via a legitimate route, why would they give thousands of £s to smuggling gangs to bring them across the channel in dangerous boats?

Eloethan

Someone lauded Australia's strict immigration policies.

I find that ironic, given that the only reason Australia has its current population is that white people invaded it, slaughtered vast numbers of its original inhabitants and destroyed the culture and lives of those that survived. Remember the £10 poms? Only white settlers were welcomed into Australia at that time and the original inhabitants continued to be completely outnumbered and dispossessed.

Maybe we should count ourselves comparatively lucky.

Totally agree Eloethan.

I do remember the £10 poms.

Australia often comes up as some wonderous system. They don't put up with it there and all that.

petra

Grantonow
It wasn’t just the lowest socioeconomic group that lost out.
When the borders opened up in 2004 I had friends who had a very successful office fitting company.
Semi skilled migrants started bidding for this work showing would be customers fake photos of their work.
Long story short my friends company folded. It had taken him years to build up this team of professionals.
He did have a laugh when he heard that a contract he bid for ( Google offices) in Ireland a company he had done work for had hired these cowboys.
The work was so bad they phoned my friend to ask if they could put it right.
He informed them that his highly skilled team had found other work.

Conversely, there were plenty of people who found themselves Polish plumbers, carpenters, etc, who were very happy with their work and overjoyed they had found people would do the work for less.

LizzieDrip

^What guarantee is there of your Far fewer boat crossings?^

Of course, there are no absolute guarantees about most things in life.

However, if people can claim asylum via a legitimate route, why would they give thousands of £s to smuggling gangs to bring them across the channel in dangerous boats?

And when their asylum claims are rejected, they won’t bother to try the boats?

Do you really think so?

Or will all the asylum seekers, boats or not be granted asylum?

Eloethan

Someone lauded Australia's strict immigration policies.

I find that ironic, given that the only reason Australia has its current population is that white people invaded it, slaughtered vast numbers of its original inhabitants and destroyed the culture and lives of those that survived. Remember the £10 poms? Only white settlers were welcomed into Australia at that time and the original inhabitants continued to be completely outnumbered and dispossessed.

Maybe we should count ourselves comparatively lucky.

That was then.

The immigration statistics now are completely different.

Strangely enough, I don't know many Australians who are descended from British immigrants although I know there must be as at one time they constituted the majority of immigrants. However, that is no longer the case.

StripeyGran

Australia often comes up as some wonderous system. They don't put up with it there and all that.

The Australian Government does like to know who is in the country, yes. Is that not sensible?
However, the system is not infallible and there are thousands of people who have overstayed their visas.

People can go there through the Migration programme or the Refugee and Humanitarian Programme.

And when their asylum claims are rejected, they won’t bother to try the boats

Currently, 48% of asylum claims in the UK are accepted at the initial stage.

Presumably a similar number would be accepted via a legitimate route.

Even if everyone whose claim was rejected turned to the people smugglers, the numbers doing so would obviously be drastically reduced from those currently taking that dangerous route.

Also, those entering the country via the legitimate route would be at no cost to the taxpayer and would be able to seek employment immediately on arrival.

I ask again mollygo, what is your suggestion to the issue of asylum seekers?

There is a lot on here about jobs for the refugees , i can remember when the factory shifts came to an end there would be hundreds marching out of the gates , now it is all automated by about a dozen people , Robots are taking over industry and there are no longer the jobs to go around so what happens we all go on benefits but how much longer can the Government keep finding the money for the British citizens before the immigrants need benefits as well , where does it all stop before we go bankrupt , who will come to the front of the queue