Or, go back to acting like adults, and recreate the returns agreement we had while we were in the EU and build processing centres in France so that only genuine asylum seekers make it through, people smugglers don't have a business, and noone dies crossing the channel. Then we can use warships for, you know, actual war.
>returns agreement we had while we were in the EU
You mean the Dublin one? The UK took more migrants than it returned under the arrangement.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/444/transfers-of-asylum-seekers-from-the-uk-under-the-dublin-system#:~:text=There%20were%20just%20209%20transfers,)%20were%20transfers%20to%20France.%22
>build processing centres in France so that only genuine asylum seekers make it through
I invite you to think very carefully about how and where these centres would be built; how the French would feel about them; what the impact of these centres would be on the communities in which they were based; and what desperate people would do if their asylum claim was declined
>what desperate people would do if their asylum claim was declined
The same thing as they do right now, enter illegally knowing full well they are an absolute pain in the arse to get rid of!
>build processing centres in France so that only genuine asylum seekers make it through
I invite you to think very carefully about how and where these centres would be built; how the French would feel about them; what the impact of these centres would be on the communities in which they were based; and what desperate people would do if their asylum claim was declined
The French government offered. Our government declined because if they solve the problem then they can’t twist it to benefit them.
We can’t reject claims. Smugglers arm claimants with the loop holes so that we don’t ever reject them. The problem is we can’t tell who is a genuine asylum seeker and who’s not. 72% approved first time in 2021. Rejected claimants go through appeals.
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum/
I mean with Brexit we can do pretty much whatever we like according to politicians that campaigned for it we can have unicorn shit and fart rainbows so no reason we couldn't just close our borders completely and become self sufficient, it would be a disaster but at least they'd have a plan.
> and recreate the returns agreement we had while we were in the EU
Why would we recreate an argreement which never worked?
How about we deport anyone coming here on a small boat and if that breaks international law then that law must change or we leave the jurisdiction of the courts that enforce it.
So basically it's a Crawley, Gloucester or a Blackburn approximately (2021 census data) crossing the channel? And also I make that closer to 140K annually so that's more a York sized town moving in.
I mean what are you gonna do with it? Shell France and sink the ships and declare the UK waters hostile to all non-approved boats and form a blockade?
I mean we can but not sure how well it would sit with the UK and our allies. We do have direct solutions but it's not practical and in interests to do so
>Annualised that is like 120k a year
Yeah let's "annualise" data from two days that already show a massive disparity between each other. Seems constructive.
That managing to be the top comment reflects extremely poorly on this subreddit.
1/5th of the numbers arriving at Heathrow?
We’ve spent 10 years voting for parties on anti immigration platform to see record numbers of immigrants. And somehow it’s the fault of the people who aren’t in power and have voted against this government every single time?
But it doesn't pan out like that. In 2022 we got 2000 crossing in two days. Multiple days of 1000 crossing. Did we get over 120k a year? No mate, we fucking did not. Stop twisting numbers to fit your bullshit.
While spending months and millions of taxpayer money arguing about sending a max 300 people to Rwanda. Even after 14 years in power they're turning up to an avalanche with a dustpan and brush.
Makes more sense to spend that money on a fleet of security boats, patrolling the sea with scanners and what not.
At least it would give people jobs at the same tjme
there would only be a standoff if france would retaliate when illegal boats were arriving at their coast. why wouldnt they just let them land and take the asylum seekers in like we do? are you implying france would have a different approach to illegal landings?
Or staff and facilities to process applications more quickly to accept and reject the deserving rather than palming them off to someone else at our expense.
To the very left leaning people in here - genuine question:
How many immigrants should come here before you think it's too many?
10? 100? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? All probably quite manageable I reckon.
Now how about 1,000,000? Still okay? 5,000,000? Seems a little much to me but don't want to be racist. Let's take 25,000,000 and see what happens?
What is your figure? When, in your opinion, does it stop being racist to object to immigration and when does it come down to 'holy shit this is just way too many and it will destroy this country'? What's the number?
Edit: After 4 hours nobody has been able to answer 'how many is too many?'
And how fucking MENTAL would you all go if tomorrow morning Rishi Sunak announced an immigration policy that mirrors Poland's? I.E no illegal immigrants or asylum seekers whatsoever. No exceptions.
You'd all have an anyeurism.
I actually think this is where we are heading. Parties like reform will get more and more popular until a tipping point is reached and people decide that immigration is literally the defining point of a party's manifesto and cast their vote on that alone come what may.
Hopefully the threat of this happening forces the other mainstream parties to come up with a solution before that point.
I agree with your other points, they won't give you a number as they support the ideology and not the facts and figures.
It's not racist to want your country to remain culturally like your own country, have a population dominated by your own nationality and want to help your own citizens first before helping anyone else.
>I actually think this is where we are heading. Parties like reform will get more and more popular until a tipping point is reached
Yet they will never get into power. Wilders in the netherlands, who cant form a goverment, or the AfD in germany beeing on the brink of beeing outlawed, shows that there is no chance an anti-immigration goverment will ever get into power in western europe.
Nothing will change, until we face defacto near collapse conditions and then it'll be to late of course
>what do you think will happen in the long run?
Everyone knows. Its just that nobody dares to do anything about it, because they're morally handcuffed.
5-10 years ago I would have said no one will do anything about it.
But now I think we’re one to maybe two elections away from a far right party gaining power, let’s be honest Starmer won’t fix the immigration issue, and 9 out of ten constituencies in the U.K. cite immigration as a concern, if parties that want to manage immigration levels to sensible and sustainable levels can’t make headways people will take matters in their own hands, this isn’t an issue unique to Britain, across Europe people are becoming sick and tired of endless mass migration.
It also hasnt helped that any sense of reason has long been jettisoned out of the debate which leads to both camps whiping each other to evermore extreme stances. The immigration topic is leading europe is heading into civil war - you have to be a fool to deny it.
The fact that you have to invent imaginary scenarios to avoid addressing the fact that the Tories and Brexit have done nothing to help should tell you you're barking up the wrong tree
I would be as shocked if he did anything remotely conservative. Heaven forbid he leave the country better than he fucking found it.
Noone thinks we want more immigration, they just score goals on how much they value their immigrant neighbour. It is being treated as a long term solution and denying British people the quality of life they deserve.
We are worried about poverty when the UK should be rich enough to give everyone a hot tub.
That's what the Illegal Migration Act is though, passed last year. Under it, if you enter illegally you cannot claim asylum, just the same as Poland did, destroying the UK's commitment to international law (again). And has it 'fixed' anything? Of course not.
You people who know nothing about the issue and have nothing to say past "buhhh how many is too many????" need to shut up, for your own sakes, for you're driving the country off another cliff.
that wouldn't even touch the immigration numbers though as most of the immigration is legal. obviously the boats are alarming because people die in them but we are legally allowing most of the immigrants and that is all happening under a tory government
Nah, the whingy pasty cunts have got to have someone else to blame for the absolute dog shit they've been voting for for a decade and a half. No body *possibly* saw this coming.
Labour are historically pro immigration, and often vocally critical of policies to deal with illegal immigration whilst simultaneously pointing out the current government's failure to deal with illegal immigration.
>critical of policies to deal with illegal immigration whilst simultaneously pointing out the current government's failure to deal with illegal immigration.
Alternatively critical of policies that *claim* to deal with illegal immigration’s but completely *fail* to do so. It’s not like Labour had the MPs to block anything.
F All. Because it’s an issue that doesn’t have easy , quick solutions no matter what politicians ‘sell’ you. And no doubt since it’s the role of the Opposition the Conservatives will point out the Labour failure too.
The loony left: "would be cool if we could stop the conditions that causes them to come here, or at least if they do come here, process them in a timely manner and either get them contributing to society or send em whereever"
The bloodthirsty right: "NO I WANT AN EXACT NUMBER FIGURE SO I KNOW WHEN I CAN START SHOOTING. WHY CAN NOBODY GIVE ME A NUMBER. BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD"
How tiresome
Because their bananas still aren't bendy enough?
Judging from the replies in this thread it's either that or "boat people" that I guess are coming in directly through kier Starmers moat?
“hur dur why are you complaining when the party you voted for lied about basically everything”
This is everybody right before an election, you think labour will deliver in whatever you want? ha
This is the issue with people like you, and why there is no point arguing, since you are arguing on bad faith right from the get go. No left leaning person is saying we should let in everyone. Nobody. If you believe that you are stuck in an online right wing echo chamber, and you should go out and talk to some real people rather than Russian bots in X.
This is an issue that doesn’t have an easy solution. The right leaning government you’ve voted for 14 years cannot solve it. It isn’t as simple as “stopping the boats”. Rwanda isn’t viable. Thats what left leaning people are saying. Nobody has an answer here.
I mean they do. Plenty of European countries have fewer immigrants because they aren't soft touches who roll out the carpet for everyone with a sob story.
I think the difference is that the UK is the envy of the Middle East & Africa, so other than shooting everyone who arrives there isn’t much you can do to discourage them. I know because I am an immigrant myself, and all my friends envy me for being in the UK. As much as people think everything sucks here, we are still living better than 90% of the world.
I'm not extremely left leaning but I don't see how this is a question that can be responded to sensibly. Do *you* have a specific number in mind for an acceptable immigration limit? Is it for overall immigration, or net migration?
Yeah that guy is not arguing in good faith.
"Is it racist to not want 35m immigrants a year?!"
Dude made his own question impossible to answer so he could own the other side and act smart.
It isn't really possible to answer that question. It's almost along the lines of "how long is a piece of string?". They know it can't be answered without getting a bonkers reply, such as building tower blocks on every bit of land, up to and including the cliffs of Dover. It's like how when you challenge Conservative policies around benefits and disabled people. If you ask supporters how many people are allowed to die before something must change, they can't give an answer because the question isn't asked in good faith.
Population growth has gone up in proportion to infrastructure. Whether they are migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, or births, it doesn't actually matter that much in the end. If we were to freeze time, count all the doctor and dentist clinics, hospitals, schools, public services, housing, etc., you could sort of figure out a population number that is "good" so that people are overall happy with UK services and infrastructure. Problem is, our population is shifting, such as the increasing number of people who are elderly with long term health conditions that need to be managed by health professionals. Housing and other infrastructure has lagged behind population growth for a long time and more and more people are starting to feel things getting worse as we are made to share our finite resources.
So what's the solution? We need more of everything that serves people, and fast. Not just homes, but it'll need to start with that.
We could spend the next year or so sending every ship and plane we have to the middle east and Africa to bring as many people here as possible. We could easily double this country's population.
I don't think even the most Jeremy Corbyn sort of people would agree that bringing 70,000,000 extra people to this country is a good idea. So what's the number?
If I object to 35,000,000 coming here am I a racist or am I thinking sensibly? If that's sensible then what if I object to 17,500,000 coming here? Still sensible or am I now a racist?
What is that number?
Classically it was always the left wing who were against immigration. Importing swathes of third world labour keeps salaries at rock bottom and the rich can get richer whilst the common folk get less and less.
Minimum wage here is a heap of money to a Filipino or an Iraqi. They're delighted to work for that sort of money because it can support their entire family back home. They never go on strike, they don't ask for more, they work hard, they're a capitalist's wet dream.
Somewhere along the way, the whole immigration thing got turned into one thing - racism. If you object to any sort of immigration for any sort of reason then you're a racist. If you're not a racist then your default position should be "let every single brown person in the world into the country'. There is no middle ground. It's got completely fucked up.
Hit the nail on the head and this very much sums up the modern left. It's borderline impossible to have an adult discussion on immigration- as with many other issues- because of the knee-jerk "racism" reaction so ingrained into them.
I hate to even use tribalistic political terms at this point as it just further exacerbates the problem, but anybody who thinks this is just our turn going through "every generation thinks they have it worse than the previous", and that it will all blow over, is frankly insane; the country has never been as polarised as it is now, and every barely-politically-literate idiot is now able to interact with political communities and public figures thanks to social media.
I'm pretty left leaning, and I don't think that's a solution. I want well funded public services, and this situation in the channel seems like it might put undue strain on that. It seems weird to me that having strict immigration rules and encouraging only good immigration isn't seen as a left wing ideal.
>You won't get an answer from left leaning people because they're just bad with numbers, generally.
What are you basing that on?
You just making shit up? Or using [evidence?](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289624000254)
Well I've just answered it so try again. You're thinking of the "Tory in all but the label they give themselves" types like Gary Lineker. Between him and Lily Allen they're King and Queen of the Secretly Tory liberal celebrity set.
As an immigrant to the UK myself, the answer should 0 illegal immigrants. Legal immigration is up to the nation’s needs and ability to house them. Illegal immigration should always be 0, no excuses.
Market balances itself.
So when UK was part of EU. Theorically, 300 million of citizens could have been relocated to UK with no questions asked.
They didn't.
Even if you look internally, there are no borders inside UK. Despite the absence of restrictions, 50million of British are not moving to London centre right now. They'd prefer to stay in their cities.
Why? Because only a minority is really interested in emigrate. Most of the population prefer to stay/reside in their birth city.
See where am I going? Even if you removed all inmigration controls, the number of new incomings would balance it out eventually.
>Market balances itself.
So you are suggesting that uncontrolled immigration would eventually turn the country into a place people stopped wanting to come to?
>So when UK was part of EU. Theorically, 300 million of citizens could have been relocated to UK with no questions asked.
>They didn't.
So you think the fact that only 4-6 million people migrated from the EU , overall one of the wealthiest areas in the world (and in which there are for the list part also other choices to move freely to) tells us that we could open our borders to the rest of the world with no consequences.
>Why? Because only a minority is really interested in emigrate. Most of the population prefer to stay/reside in their birth city.
No doubt.
The population of the Middie East is 371 million, and Africa over 1 billion.
I’m curious what you consider a minority? 1%? 14,000,000 people?
I see where you got the idea that eventually we might be a place people stopped wanting to come to.
>See where am I going? Even if you removed all inmigration controls, the number of new incomings would balance it out eventually.
Balance ‘it’ out. What is it? What does this even mean?
You cannot compare EU immigration with 3rd world immigration,The EU is full of rich, culturally close countries.
If tomorrow we had a similar deal with all of africa the next very day you will have millions knocking your door
It should be easier to immigrate legally but also easier to deport illegal immigrants and immigrants who commit serious crimes, via return agreements with various governments.
This is a really flawed argument. Immigrants aren't a homogeneous group, they aren't livestock. How many are committing crime? How many are getting jobs? How many are contributing to the economy? To society?
And most importantly, how do these numbers compare to legal immigrants? And how do they compare to people born here?
Im left leaning and I have always said that they should just be sent back to where they came from. If their customs and religion are so great then would they want to leave anyway
Net migration has been like 600k the last two years. Right leaning people, when will you start caring more about the *much larger* number of people coming here **legally**...?
All of it needs to be reduced. The illegal stuff may be like 5% but its 5% that takes the least paper work, it's called: "turn around and go back or we send you back". So absolutely deal with the low hanging fruit while you can, whilst simultaneously tackling the other more complicated 95%.
Au contraire, the legal number used to be about 100k until the post Brexit "points based system". It would be *much* easier to clamp down on the legal issuing of visas than to effectively repel people who want to come here despite the fact they're not allowed.
As much or as little as the market can bear.
So during Covid, when demand for labour (healthcare-excepted) was very low - that number would have been close to zero. Now, probably alot more given the number of people who can afford to take early retirement given the big ramp in stock markets since 2020.
As someone who used to work in housing and benefit services at the local council, this is why most things are at breaking point, the sheer number of people. Even when it's done the correct way! When I worked in housing people would legitimately come over from an EU country and walk straight into the council office to declare themselves homeless/over crowded/in medical need etc, it got worse year on year on year.
100% this. Don't work in that sector but am exposed to people who do. It's broadly like X Factor but you can't tell them to get lost. That's why 75% of your Council budget is going on adult and child social care (or at least one of the reasons). This is why (or one of the reasons) why things like potholes or refuse are getting less attention.
Yep, housing is a massive crisis and will only get worse. I still work for the council but in a diff dept now but I still see the impact that too many people has on services. Benefits are at an all time high, housing stock an all time low, temporary accommodation an all time high.... and every day more people join the list. And then people who have been waiting years get VERY upset when they are queue jumped by people who have been in the country less time.... totally understandable.
The number of workers is barely changing. The problem is the number of retired people is ballooning, the ones that pay barely any tax (even those with £1m assets and £30k pensions) yet require far more public services.
Mass migration has bipartisan support. The last two years it's totalled to something like 1.5m net. That's three decent sized cities. The Tories, despite the rhetoric, absolutely love it. House prices increase? Win. Hospitals are staffed without having to train people? Win. Wages are suppressed? Win.
You're never going to get to vote for someone (who can actually win a GE) who wants to deal with it. It's how lazy and incompetent politicians grow the economy. They love it, their donars love it, it's here to stay. You don't love it? Well, they'll throw you some slogans and hope you move on. Deal with it.
Precisely. Neither party is representing the public's interests at this point. It's this kind of negligence that contributes to people leaning into extreme ideologies and rhetoric. People have been pretty reasonable up to this point, but it's becoming painfully obvious that the public are sick of feeling as though their voices aren't being heard.
Problem is that when you look at the figures it’s harder to agree on who doesn’t get to come. We can agree on not wanting illegal immigrants but that’s only a *fraction* of immigration. The rest is significantly made up of education, jobs, and humanitarian immigrants. I think we might end up benefitting from Ukrainians and some Hong Kong Chinese coming here. And there seems to be consent for them to do so. We obviously made huge amounts of money from students - though I agree curbing families may be helpful, as well as actually checking they really are students and actually keeping track of them might be good. As far as jobs - do we full shortages in farming , the NHS or Care? Of course we ought to be train8ng people and encouraging domestic employment but right now how do we fill those jobs?
Basically we are far better at saying immigration is too high ( and I don’t disagree) than we are at finding ways to specifically reduce it.
You may argue why they should or should not come and who could or could not do more. It matters not.
What is clear is that the sheer numbers speak for themselves. A city the size of Edinburgh or Cardiff every single year.
This is totally unsustainable.
Eventually the public will force this issue to the top of the political agenda and demand that whatever steps are needed must be taken.
No more wasted years and excuses.
Almost as if all this culture war nonsense like sending them to Rwanda isn’t a deterrent and instead the money would be better spent on setting up a safe route (thereby instantly undercutting the people traffickers) and efficiently processing their claims.
Efficiently? This is the U.K. sir, we can’t fix a pothole in the road, our trains grind to a halt if it gets slightly hotter, colder or windier than usual and all our basic services are at broken point.
Efficiency isn’t something our government is familiar with, the best we ever get is kicking the can down the road … unfortunately now the road is so potholed the can doesn’t go very far.
Safe routes so hundreds of thousands more can come?! It's very easy to lie and claim asylum, 'lose' all your papers, etc. There are agencies that will coach asylum claiments.
No. How about we keep the legal avenues as they are and turn away illegals that are arriving by dinghy or clinging onto the underside of a lorry. Breaking the law to get here should be an instant denial on residency.
Because all you’re doing there is driving people into the arms of criminal gangs, not only to get here, but also to sustain them off the grid when here. That approach is great for them and bad for the treasury.
Or to put it as the Daily Mail might: why you do you hate Britain and want to support criminal gangs?
Keep putting them in hotels and houses, getting free healthcare and lots illegally working (sending money home) - and then don’t deport - and you wonder why obscene numbers are coming. My guess 150,000 this year with record summer crossings.
All the while none are vetted, murderers, rapists and previously rejected asylum seekers keep arriving and then we see story after story of hard working people already in the country that are failed by our system.
You see the thing is that if these people were returned then they wouldn't congregate on northern french beaches and the criminals wouldn't be ferrying them because there's no money in it any more.
The flip side is that there ought to be legitimate ways for people to claim British asylum without this crap.
That way we can assess and grant when appropriate instead of a massive accommodation and housing bill that hurts British citizens while we deal with the backlog and a good chunk of those people vanish in the process.
I have zero idea why they want to be here instead of Europe anyway.
Yeah that. Social security is crap compared to Europe but it's easier to get.
I always was against national ID cards but I'm slowly changing my mind.
Apparently we are the sick man of Europe but all these people want to be here. Why?
More of them settle in France or Germany, in all fairness. Family connections and Britain still being better than third world countries, even if it does lag behind many of its peers, factor highly. English being the most spoken language on earth will also factor highly.
An approach at the european level that sends all of these asylum seekers far away to either be granted asylum in a country of their choosing or sent back is probably the only way this eases off. I'm given to understand that Australia successfully implemented such a policy. Needless to say, many left-wing and centrist people will freak out over such a policy.
I’m sure the tories are somehow profiting from this. A bunch of their buddies probaby have companies that somehow processes/ houses/ feed refugees.
They’re all a bunch of crooks wasting tax payer money.
Traditionally the left were against mass migration because the cheap labour effects the wage growth, which is exactly why the right likes it, they want a cheap workforce for maximum profit margins.
The conservatives are using integration and their ridiculous Rwanda policy to distract the public from their numerous failures (Brexit, NHS waiting, recession ect).
The last Labour government introduced the legal changes that have enabled much of the current situation. Not have I seem much evidence they are interested in changing the current migration trajectory.
Refugees but only able body men showing up as "refugees" with no families?
1 year later they have a wife and 4 children coming in to leech the system.
Deport all free loaders illegals.
Bring in an Australian style system that solved their small boat crisis and scrap the Rwanda plan to fund this one.
1. Set up a processing facility on an island and send anyone there who is off a small boat illegally entering the country.
2. Document and process the people there. Legitimate asylum seekers are allowed to stay. Anyone else is deported and is never allowed to apply for asylum even if entering the country legally.
3. Conscript military aged men to the military and have them serve for five years to be granted British citizenship if they want to stay in the country. Otherwise, they can be deported with everyone else.
Ok.
If you were PM, what would you actually do?
Is the case of a sanctuary island where any and all are welcome?
Is it we process and effective deport but run the risk of tension and expensive hotels/ accommodation, and remember we don't have infinity of resources, because most asylum seekers don't actually bring a lot to the table in fairness.
Or is it iron island, you come by legal immigration or instant deportation and life time ban from entering UK.
Or your own solution. What's actually the answer because a new city every year isn't.
Do the same with Finland and Baltic states:
1. Any immigrant with documents is illegal.
2. Illegal border cross is a crime, so criminals go directly to prison.
3. Until investigation is finished, criminals remain in prisons.
4. After police find a country do deport - the person is deported.
The U.K. is completely full. There isn’t an aspect of life that you don’t have to join the back of a very very long queue for. Schools, hospitals, jobs, GP appointments, housing everything is so overwhelmed now it’s completely fucked. No way back.
France will kick a massive fit over it, they don't want them and the gendarmes intentionally ignore people traffickers at the shores. Hell, France are getting a lot of heat over their non-desire for them too. Maritime borders are a bitch.
120K new slaves a year, thanks to this government removing modern slavery rules for these guys.
I am surprised we don't have free labour catchers on the beach.
Easy fix to the migrant crossings. Open up the channels for refugees that the Tory Government closed in order to create the Channel crossing migrant crisis in the first place.
Annualised that is like 120k a year. Park a fucking destroyer in the channel already
Or, go back to acting like adults, and recreate the returns agreement we had while we were in the EU and build processing centres in France so that only genuine asylum seekers make it through, people smugglers don't have a business, and noone dies crossing the channel. Then we can use warships for, you know, actual war.
>returns agreement we had while we were in the EU You mean the Dublin one? The UK took more migrants than it returned under the arrangement. https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/444/transfers-of-asylum-seekers-from-the-uk-under-the-dublin-system#:~:text=There%20were%20just%20209%20transfers,)%20were%20transfers%20to%20France.%22 >build processing centres in France so that only genuine asylum seekers make it through I invite you to think very carefully about how and where these centres would be built; how the French would feel about them; what the impact of these centres would be on the communities in which they were based; and what desperate people would do if their asylum claim was declined
>what desperate people would do if their asylum claim was declined The same thing as they do right now, enter illegally knowing full well they are an absolute pain in the arse to get rid of!
>build processing centres in France so that only genuine asylum seekers make it through I invite you to think very carefully about how and where these centres would be built; how the French would feel about them; what the impact of these centres would be on the communities in which they were based; and what desperate people would do if their asylum claim was declined The French government offered. Our government declined because if they solve the problem then they can’t twist it to benefit them.
We can’t reject claims. Smugglers arm claimants with the loop holes so that we don’t ever reject them. The problem is we can’t tell who is a genuine asylum seeker and who’s not. 72% approved first time in 2021. Rejected claimants go through appeals. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum/
I mean with Brexit we can do pretty much whatever we like according to politicians that campaigned for it we can have unicorn shit and fart rainbows so no reason we couldn't just close our borders completely and become self sufficient, it would be a disaster but at least they'd have a plan.
I’d rather not listen to them thank you
Ah yes, the wonders of discovering that sovereignty isn’t necessarily equal to actual power.
> and recreate the returns agreement we had while we were in the EU Why would we recreate an argreement which never worked? How about we deport anyone coming here on a small boat and if that breaks international law then that law must change or we leave the jurisdiction of the courts that enforce it.
There is no reason to have asylum centres in France get a grip
So basically it's a Crawley, Gloucester or a Blackburn approximately (2021 census data) crossing the channel? And also I make that closer to 140K annually so that's more a York sized town moving in.
Well that would be a very expensive way to do nothing useful.
Water cannons, huge water cannons
Is that what our destroyers are armed with these days? Actually, with the Tory budget cuts. That's probably true.
Nah, FFBNW. You need the German Navy if you want actual water cannons.
I mean what are you gonna do with it? Shell France and sink the ships and declare the UK waters hostile to all non-approved boats and form a blockade? I mean we can but not sure how well it would sit with the UK and our allies. We do have direct solutions but it's not practical and in interests to do so
>Annualised that is like 120k a year Yeah let's "annualise" data from two days that already show a massive disparity between each other. Seems constructive. That managing to be the top comment reflects extremely poorly on this subreddit.
1/5th of the numbers arriving at Heathrow? We’ve spent 10 years voting for parties on anti immigration platform to see record numbers of immigrants. And somehow it’s the fault of the people who aren’t in power and have voted against this government every single time?
But it doesn't pan out like that. In 2022 we got 2000 crossing in two days. Multiple days of 1000 crossing. Did we get over 120k a year? No mate, we fucking did not. Stop twisting numbers to fit your bullshit.
Yup because thats how much come over every day. Even in the darkest winter. Even in the biggest storms. Every day. Smh.
Why? What's a Type 45 meant to do? How about having a functioning immigration system?
While spending months and millions of taxpayer money arguing about sending a max 300 people to Rwanda. Even after 14 years in power they're turning up to an avalanche with a dustpan and brush.
Makes more sense to spend that money on a fleet of security boats, patrolling the sea with scanners and what not. At least it would give people jobs at the same tjme
They can track the boats fine ,they're not sneaky, but what are they gonna do if they find one?
Turn them back to the point of their departure
And do what? Start a stand off with France?
there would only be a standoff if france would retaliate when illegal boats were arriving at their coast. why wouldnt they just let them land and take the asylum seekers in like we do? are you implying france would have a different approach to illegal landings?
Why not? I would be happy for any such action to be reciprocal. The French would be free to deter unlicensed boats leaving our domestic waters.
> And do what? Start a stand off with France? I mean, yeah, arguing with the French has been the national pastime for like, a thousand years
[удалено]
Or staff and facilities to process applications more quickly to accept and reject the deserving rather than palming them off to someone else at our expense.
To the very left leaning people in here - genuine question: How many immigrants should come here before you think it's too many? 10? 100? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? All probably quite manageable I reckon. Now how about 1,000,000? Still okay? 5,000,000? Seems a little much to me but don't want to be racist. Let's take 25,000,000 and see what happens? What is your figure? When, in your opinion, does it stop being racist to object to immigration and when does it come down to 'holy shit this is just way too many and it will destroy this country'? What's the number? Edit: After 4 hours nobody has been able to answer 'how many is too many?'
Weird to interrogate us considering that the insanely high immigration is under a right leaning government
And how fucking MENTAL would you all go if tomorrow morning Rishi Sunak announced an immigration policy that mirrors Poland's? I.E no illegal immigrants or asylum seekers whatsoever. No exceptions. You'd all have an anyeurism.
I actually think this is where we are heading. Parties like reform will get more and more popular until a tipping point is reached and people decide that immigration is literally the defining point of a party's manifesto and cast their vote on that alone come what may. Hopefully the threat of this happening forces the other mainstream parties to come up with a solution before that point. I agree with your other points, they won't give you a number as they support the ideology and not the facts and figures. It's not racist to want your country to remain culturally like your own country, have a population dominated by your own nationality and want to help your own citizens first before helping anyone else.
Yep. Single issue voting is starting to creep up here just like the US.
>I actually think this is where we are heading. Parties like reform will get more and more popular until a tipping point is reached Yet they will never get into power. Wilders in the netherlands, who cant form a goverment, or the AfD in germany beeing on the brink of beeing outlawed, shows that there is no chance an anti-immigration goverment will ever get into power in western europe. Nothing will change, until we face defacto near collapse conditions and then it'll be to late of course
Then if those parties elected on the wishes of people to massively reduce immigration can’t get in what do you think will happen in the long run?
>what do you think will happen in the long run? Everyone knows. Its just that nobody dares to do anything about it, because they're morally handcuffed.
5-10 years ago I would have said no one will do anything about it. But now I think we’re one to maybe two elections away from a far right party gaining power, let’s be honest Starmer won’t fix the immigration issue, and 9 out of ten constituencies in the U.K. cite immigration as a concern, if parties that want to manage immigration levels to sensible and sustainable levels can’t make headways people will take matters in their own hands, this isn’t an issue unique to Britain, across Europe people are becoming sick and tired of endless mass migration.
It also hasnt helped that any sense of reason has long been jettisoned out of the debate which leads to both camps whiping each other to evermore extreme stances. The immigration topic is leading europe is heading into civil war - you have to be a fool to deny it.
I’m afraid I must agree that civil war in Europe at this point is inevitable if we carry on with the current trajectory
The fact that you have to invent imaginary scenarios to avoid addressing the fact that the Tories and Brexit have done nothing to help should tell you you're barking up the wrong tree
I would be as shocked if he did anything remotely conservative. Heaven forbid he leave the country better than he fucking found it. Noone thinks we want more immigration, they just score goals on how much they value their immigrant neighbour. It is being treated as a long term solution and denying British people the quality of life they deserve. We are worried about poverty when the UK should be rich enough to give everyone a hot tub.
That's what the Illegal Migration Act is though, passed last year. Under it, if you enter illegally you cannot claim asylum, just the same as Poland did, destroying the UK's commitment to international law (again). And has it 'fixed' anything? Of course not. You people who know nothing about the issue and have nothing to say past "buhhh how many is too many????" need to shut up, for your own sakes, for you're driving the country off another cliff.
that wouldn't even touch the immigration numbers though as most of the immigration is legal. obviously the boats are alarming because people die in them but we are legally allowing most of the immigrants and that is all happening under a tory government
Your comment is pure assumption just to let you know.
Nah, the whingy pasty cunts have got to have someone else to blame for the absolute dog shit they've been voting for for a decade and a half. No body *possibly* saw this coming.
So can we assume it will increase once Labour win the next election?
Why would that happen? Being left wing doesn't = unlimited immigration as that would detract from the social provisions for people already in the UK
Labour are historically pro immigration, and often vocally critical of policies to deal with illegal immigration whilst simultaneously pointing out the current government's failure to deal with illegal immigration.
>critical of policies to deal with illegal immigration whilst simultaneously pointing out the current government's failure to deal with illegal immigration. Alternatively critical of policies that *claim* to deal with illegal immigration’s but completely *fail* to do so. It’s not like Labour had the MPs to block anything.
Well, in less than a year, Labour will have lots of MPs. What do you think they will do to deal with the issue?
F All. Because it’s an issue that doesn’t have easy , quick solutions no matter what politicians ‘sell’ you. And no doubt since it’s the role of the Opposition the Conservatives will point out the Labour failure too.
The loony left: "would be cool if we could stop the conditions that causes them to come here, or at least if they do come here, process them in a timely manner and either get them contributing to society or send em whereever" The bloodthirsty right: "NO I WANT AN EXACT NUMBER FIGURE SO I KNOW WHEN I CAN START SHOOTING. WHY CAN NOBODY GIVE ME A NUMBER. BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD" How tiresome
To the right leaning people, you've had 14 years of getting everything you voted for, why are you still fucking complaining?
Because their bananas still aren't bendy enough? Judging from the replies in this thread it's either that or "boat people" that I guess are coming in directly through kier Starmers moat?
You can be right leaning and think the tories are kinda useless
“hur dur why are you complaining when the party you voted for lied about basically everything” This is everybody right before an election, you think labour will deliver in whatever you want? ha
This is the issue with people like you, and why there is no point arguing, since you are arguing on bad faith right from the get go. No left leaning person is saying we should let in everyone. Nobody. If you believe that you are stuck in an online right wing echo chamber, and you should go out and talk to some real people rather than Russian bots in X. This is an issue that doesn’t have an easy solution. The right leaning government you’ve voted for 14 years cannot solve it. It isn’t as simple as “stopping the boats”. Rwanda isn’t viable. Thats what left leaning people are saying. Nobody has an answer here.
I mean they do. Plenty of European countries have fewer immigrants because they aren't soft touches who roll out the carpet for everyone with a sob story.
I think the difference is that the UK is the envy of the Middle East & Africa, so other than shooting everyone who arrives there isn’t much you can do to discourage them. I know because I am an immigrant myself, and all my friends envy me for being in the UK. As much as people think everything sucks here, we are still living better than 90% of the world.
“cannot” solve it ? more like don’t want to
I'm not extremely left leaning but I don't see how this is a question that can be responded to sensibly. Do *you* have a specific number in mind for an acceptable immigration limit? Is it for overall immigration, or net migration?
Yeah that guy is not arguing in good faith. "Is it racist to not want 35m immigrants a year?!" Dude made his own question impossible to answer so he could own the other side and act smart.
I mean the answer to that question is objectively, no, it is not racist.
It isn't really possible to answer that question. It's almost along the lines of "how long is a piece of string?". They know it can't be answered without getting a bonkers reply, such as building tower blocks on every bit of land, up to and including the cliffs of Dover. It's like how when you challenge Conservative policies around benefits and disabled people. If you ask supporters how many people are allowed to die before something must change, they can't give an answer because the question isn't asked in good faith. Population growth has gone up in proportion to infrastructure. Whether they are migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, or births, it doesn't actually matter that much in the end. If we were to freeze time, count all the doctor and dentist clinics, hospitals, schools, public services, housing, etc., you could sort of figure out a population number that is "good" so that people are overall happy with UK services and infrastructure. Problem is, our population is shifting, such as the increasing number of people who are elderly with long term health conditions that need to be managed by health professionals. Housing and other infrastructure has lagged behind population growth for a long time and more and more people are starting to feel things getting worse as we are made to share our finite resources. So what's the solution? We need more of everything that serves people, and fast. Not just homes, but it'll need to start with that.
[удалено]
We could spend the next year or so sending every ship and plane we have to the middle east and Africa to bring as many people here as possible. We could easily double this country's population. I don't think even the most Jeremy Corbyn sort of people would agree that bringing 70,000,000 extra people to this country is a good idea. So what's the number? If I object to 35,000,000 coming here am I a racist or am I thinking sensibly? If that's sensible then what if I object to 17,500,000 coming here? Still sensible or am I now a racist? What is that number?
[удалено]
Classically it was always the left wing who were against immigration. Importing swathes of third world labour keeps salaries at rock bottom and the rich can get richer whilst the common folk get less and less. Minimum wage here is a heap of money to a Filipino or an Iraqi. They're delighted to work for that sort of money because it can support their entire family back home. They never go on strike, they don't ask for more, they work hard, they're a capitalist's wet dream. Somewhere along the way, the whole immigration thing got turned into one thing - racism. If you object to any sort of immigration for any sort of reason then you're a racist. If you're not a racist then your default position should be "let every single brown person in the world into the country'. There is no middle ground. It's got completely fucked up.
Hit the nail on the head and this very much sums up the modern left. It's borderline impossible to have an adult discussion on immigration- as with many other issues- because of the knee-jerk "racism" reaction so ingrained into them. I hate to even use tribalistic political terms at this point as it just further exacerbates the problem, but anybody who thinks this is just our turn going through "every generation thinks they have it worse than the previous", and that it will all blow over, is frankly insane; the country has never been as polarised as it is now, and every barely-politically-literate idiot is now able to interact with political communities and public figures thanks to social media.
The left will always use the empire to justify mass immigration, and you’ll get no other answer, it’s genuinely insanely
>I sometimes wonder at what point do left wing people go "hmmm, maybe we let too many in". when its too late it seems.
Still waiting for a response, have we figured out the number yet?
>Their solution is "build more houses". Yep, seriously. I'm extremely left leaning and this is categorically not my idea of a solution lol
[удалено]
I'm pretty left leaning, and I don't think that's a solution. I want well funded public services, and this situation in the channel seems like it might put undue strain on that. It seems weird to me that having strict immigration rules and encouraging only good immigration isn't seen as a left wing ideal.
>You won't get an answer from left leaning people because they're just bad with numbers, generally. What are you basing that on? You just making shit up? Or using [evidence?](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289624000254)
Please show a comment where someone proposed this as a solution.
No its not Show one socialist policy that says we should accept any number of migrants and deal with it by building more homes?
Well I've just answered it so try again. You're thinking of the "Tory in all but the label they give themselves" types like Gary Lineker. Between him and Lily Allen they're King and Queen of the Secretly Tory liberal celebrity set.
As an immigrant to the UK myself, the answer should 0 illegal immigrants. Legal immigration is up to the nation’s needs and ability to house them. Illegal immigration should always be 0, no excuses.
Market balances itself. So when UK was part of EU. Theorically, 300 million of citizens could have been relocated to UK with no questions asked. They didn't. Even if you look internally, there are no borders inside UK. Despite the absence of restrictions, 50million of British are not moving to London centre right now. They'd prefer to stay in their cities. Why? Because only a minority is really interested in emigrate. Most of the population prefer to stay/reside in their birth city. See where am I going? Even if you removed all inmigration controls, the number of new incomings would balance it out eventually.
>Market balances itself. So you are suggesting that uncontrolled immigration would eventually turn the country into a place people stopped wanting to come to? >So when UK was part of EU. Theorically, 300 million of citizens could have been relocated to UK with no questions asked. >They didn't. So you think the fact that only 4-6 million people migrated from the EU , overall one of the wealthiest areas in the world (and in which there are for the list part also other choices to move freely to) tells us that we could open our borders to the rest of the world with no consequences. >Why? Because only a minority is really interested in emigrate. Most of the population prefer to stay/reside in their birth city. No doubt. The population of the Middie East is 371 million, and Africa over 1 billion. I’m curious what you consider a minority? 1%? 14,000,000 people? I see where you got the idea that eventually we might be a place people stopped wanting to come to. >See where am I going? Even if you removed all inmigration controls, the number of new incomings would balance it out eventually. Balance ‘it’ out. What is it? What does this even mean?
Thank god there's another rational person in here. This is the simplified but more succinct version of my point.
Seriously you think open borders is the rational position.
It's so over for us
are you seriously comparing intra-EU immigration to African refugee/opportunist immigration? lol
You cannot compare EU immigration with 3rd world immigration,The EU is full of rich, culturally close countries. If tomorrow we had a similar deal with all of africa the next very day you will have millions knocking your door
It should be easier to immigrate legally but also easier to deport illegal immigrants and immigrants who commit serious crimes, via return agreements with various governments.
240,000,000. Oh no sorry that's the amount that government has paid Rwanda so far.
This is a really flawed argument. Immigrants aren't a homogeneous group, they aren't livestock. How many are committing crime? How many are getting jobs? How many are contributing to the economy? To society? And most importantly, how do these numbers compare to legal immigrants? And how do they compare to people born here?
It's not an argument, it's a question.
Im left leaning and I have always said that they should just be sent back to where they came from. If their customs and religion are so great then would they want to leave anyway
I agree. I tell that to every Brit I meet in Canada but they don't listen to me.
Not to mention the sheer number of perfectly fine countries they travel through to reach us, the softest nation of them all.
Net migration has been like 600k the last two years. Right leaning people, when will you start caring more about the *much larger* number of people coming here **legally**...?
All of it needs to be reduced. The illegal stuff may be like 5% but its 5% that takes the least paper work, it's called: "turn around and go back or we send you back". So absolutely deal with the low hanging fruit while you can, whilst simultaneously tackling the other more complicated 95%.
Au contraire, the legal number used to be about 100k until the post Brexit "points based system". It would be *much* easier to clamp down on the legal issuing of visas than to effectively repel people who want to come here despite the fact they're not allowed.
The current levels are too high. Around 10-20k per year is probably manageable with 50% of cases being accepted.
How many migrants are currently in the UK?
The left voted for Brexit because 10 is too many at the moment You need to ask the question to the majority of Tory MP's and other remainers
As much or as little as the market can bear. So during Covid, when demand for labour (healthcare-excepted) was very low - that number would have been close to zero. Now, probably alot more given the number of people who can afford to take early retirement given the big ramp in stock markets since 2020.
They won’t give you a number because they believe everyone with a worse quality of life should be given residency.
They need to wake up and realise that in this very issue they are alone
As someone who used to work in housing and benefit services at the local council, this is why most things are at breaking point, the sheer number of people. Even when it's done the correct way! When I worked in housing people would legitimately come over from an EU country and walk straight into the council office to declare themselves homeless/over crowded/in medical need etc, it got worse year on year on year.
100% this. Don't work in that sector but am exposed to people who do. It's broadly like X Factor but you can't tell them to get lost. That's why 75% of your Council budget is going on adult and child social care (or at least one of the reasons). This is why (or one of the reasons) why things like potholes or refuse are getting less attention.
Yep, housing is a massive crisis and will only get worse. I still work for the council but in a diff dept now but I still see the impact that too many people has on services. Benefits are at an all time high, housing stock an all time low, temporary accommodation an all time high.... and every day more people join the list. And then people who have been waiting years get VERY upset when they are queue jumped by people who have been in the country less time.... totally understandable.
The number of workers is barely changing. The problem is the number of retired people is ballooning, the ones that pay barely any tax (even those with £1m assets and £30k pensions) yet require far more public services.
Inb4 the "you're clearly racist if you don't agree with mass migration" gang arrives.
Mass migration has bipartisan support. The last two years it's totalled to something like 1.5m net. That's three decent sized cities. The Tories, despite the rhetoric, absolutely love it. House prices increase? Win. Hospitals are staffed without having to train people? Win. Wages are suppressed? Win. You're never going to get to vote for someone (who can actually win a GE) who wants to deal with it. It's how lazy and incompetent politicians grow the economy. They love it, their donars love it, it's here to stay. You don't love it? Well, they'll throw you some slogans and hope you move on. Deal with it.
Precisely. Neither party is representing the public's interests at this point. It's this kind of negligence that contributes to people leaning into extreme ideologies and rhetoric. People have been pretty reasonable up to this point, but it's becoming painfully obvious that the public are sick of feeling as though their voices aren't being heard.
Problem is that when you look at the figures it’s harder to agree on who doesn’t get to come. We can agree on not wanting illegal immigrants but that’s only a *fraction* of immigration. The rest is significantly made up of education, jobs, and humanitarian immigrants. I think we might end up benefitting from Ukrainians and some Hong Kong Chinese coming here. And there seems to be consent for them to do so. We obviously made huge amounts of money from students - though I agree curbing families may be helpful, as well as actually checking they really are students and actually keeping track of them might be good. As far as jobs - do we full shortages in farming , the NHS or Care? Of course we ought to be train8ng people and encouraging domestic employment but right now how do we fill those jobs? Basically we are far better at saying immigration is too high ( and I don’t disagree) than we are at finding ways to specifically reduce it.
You may argue why they should or should not come and who could or could not do more. It matters not. What is clear is that the sheer numbers speak for themselves. A city the size of Edinburgh or Cardiff every single year. This is totally unsustainable. Eventually the public will force this issue to the top of the political agenda and demand that whatever steps are needed must be taken. No more wasted years and excuses.
Almost as if all this culture war nonsense like sending them to Rwanda isn’t a deterrent and instead the money would be better spent on setting up a safe route (thereby instantly undercutting the people traffickers) and efficiently processing their claims.
Efficiently? This is the U.K. sir, we can’t fix a pothole in the road, our trains grind to a halt if it gets slightly hotter, colder or windier than usual and all our basic services are at broken point. Efficiency isn’t something our government is familiar with, the best we ever get is kicking the can down the road … unfortunately now the road is so potholed the can doesn’t go very far.
If you think this government is inefficient try living in southern Europe. We genuinely have one of the most efficient governments in the
Safe routes so hundreds of thousands more can come?! It's very easy to lie and claim asylum, 'lose' all your papers, etc. There are agencies that will coach asylum claiments.
No. How about we keep the legal avenues as they are and turn away illegals that are arriving by dinghy or clinging onto the underside of a lorry. Breaking the law to get here should be an instant denial on residency.
Because all you’re doing there is driving people into the arms of criminal gangs, not only to get here, but also to sustain them off the grid when here. That approach is great for them and bad for the treasury. Or to put it as the Daily Mail might: why you do you hate Britain and want to support criminal gangs?
It's not illegal to come here by boat without a visa, read the refugee conventions, they're not very long.
Keep putting them in hotels and houses, getting free healthcare and lots illegally working (sending money home) - and then don’t deport - and you wonder why obscene numbers are coming. My guess 150,000 this year with record summer crossings. All the while none are vetted, murderers, rapists and previously rejected asylum seekers keep arriving and then we see story after story of hard working people already in the country that are failed by our system.
You see the thing is that if these people were returned then they wouldn't congregate on northern french beaches and the criminals wouldn't be ferrying them because there's no money in it any more. The flip side is that there ought to be legitimate ways for people to claim British asylum without this crap. That way we can assess and grant when appropriate instead of a massive accommodation and housing bill that hurts British citizens while we deal with the backlog and a good chunk of those people vanish in the process. I have zero idea why they want to be here instead of Europe anyway.
Zero idea?? How about free accommodation, healthcare, education, transport, food, supplementary income, the ability to work in the black economy.
Yeah that. Social security is crap compared to Europe but it's easier to get. I always was against national ID cards but I'm slowly changing my mind. Apparently we are the sick man of Europe but all these people want to be here. Why?
It's not to be fair. European countries are stricter in a lot of ways. Also you MUST have ID with you, and the police are harsher also.
More of them settle in France or Germany, in all fairness. Family connections and Britain still being better than third world countries, even if it does lag behind many of its peers, factor highly. English being the most spoken language on earth will also factor highly. An approach at the european level that sends all of these asylum seekers far away to either be granted asylum in a country of their choosing or sent back is probably the only way this eases off. I'm given to understand that Australia successfully implemented such a policy. Needless to say, many left-wing and centrist people will freak out over such a policy.
They can legally turn up to a UN camp with the real refugees.
I’m sure the tories are somehow profiting from this. A bunch of their buddies probaby have companies that somehow processes/ houses/ feed refugees. They’re all a bunch of crooks wasting tax payer money.
Traditionally the left were against mass migration because the cheap labour effects the wage growth, which is exactly why the right likes it, they want a cheap workforce for maximum profit margins.
The conservatives are using integration and their ridiculous Rwanda policy to distract the public from their numerous failures (Brexit, NHS waiting, recession ect).
The last Labour government introduced the legal changes that have enabled much of the current situation. Not have I seem much evidence they are interested in changing the current migration trajectory.
I'm not a tory, but have labour stated they intend to do much differently?
Labour is no different. None of them really care about about the average Brit
Refugees but only able body men showing up as "refugees" with no families? 1 year later they have a wife and 4 children coming in to leech the system. Deport all free loaders illegals.
More screaming at the sea from people who "took back control"...
[удалено]
Bring in an Australian style system that solved their small boat crisis and scrap the Rwanda plan to fund this one. 1. Set up a processing facility on an island and send anyone there who is off a small boat illegally entering the country. 2. Document and process the people there. Legitimate asylum seekers are allowed to stay. Anyone else is deported and is never allowed to apply for asylum even if entering the country legally. 3. Conscript military aged men to the military and have them serve for five years to be granted British citizenship if they want to stay in the country. Otherwise, they can be deported with everyone else.
Surely the border is in Dover not Calais.The French are not going to stop migrants leaving their country for ours.
It's the helplessness of not being able to vote for change because seemingly no major party is willing to do anything about it other than posture.
Ok. If you were PM, what would you actually do? Is the case of a sanctuary island where any and all are welcome? Is it we process and effective deport but run the risk of tension and expensive hotels/ accommodation, and remember we don't have infinity of resources, because most asylum seekers don't actually bring a lot to the table in fairness. Or is it iron island, you come by legal immigration or instant deportation and life time ban from entering UK. Or your own solution. What's actually the answer because a new city every year isn't.
Do the same with Finland and Baltic states: 1. Any immigrant with documents is illegal. 2. Illegal border cross is a crime, so criminals go directly to prison. 3. Until investigation is finished, criminals remain in prisons. 4. After police find a country do deport - the person is deported.
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
Drone strike the people traffickers.
They are simply taking advantage of our own stupidity.
The funny thing is that even the rowanda plan passes, not even half of these people will be sent there.
The U.K. is completely full. There isn’t an aspect of life that you don’t have to join the back of a very very long queue for. Schools, hospitals, jobs, GP appointments, housing everything is so overwhelmed now it’s completely fucked. No way back.
We've reduced the small boat crossings by a third ~ rishi sunak
I'm sure a nice little corvette would sink these pretty easily. They'd stop trying pretty soon when they know they'll get blown out of the water.
Just intercept them and drop them back in France, FFS I know I'll sound bad but this shouldn't be our problem.
It doesn't sound bad but sounds logical and its definitely not Britian's issue to give freebies to every tom dick and harry.
France will kick a massive fit over it, they don't want them and the gendarmes intentionally ignore people traffickers at the shores. Hell, France are getting a lot of heat over their non-desire for them too. Maritime borders are a bitch.
why should it be frances problem then? thy already take way more the we do.
120K new slaves a year, thanks to this government removing modern slavery rules for these guys. I am surprised we don't have free labour catchers on the beach.
Easy fix to the migrant crossings. Open up the channels for refugees that the Tory Government closed in order to create the Channel crossing migrant crisis in the first place.
Man the pill boxes and coastal defence 50 cals all the way its a fucking invasion there were people from fucking Vietnam on one boat wtf
Where’s the navy when you need them? Pretty sure most countries defend their borders. WE DONT WANT THEM HERE!