By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The government's argument is about deterrent effect rather than overseas processing for all arrivals, and i suppose one would have to say that whether this will work is an empirical question. The situation with Albanians, where the number of arrivals is sharply down this year, might give a clue. Last year about a quarter of cross channel arrivals (or around 10.000 persons) were Albanians. Since the agreement took effect in December 2022, the UK government returned around 1000 and that seems enough to stem the inward flow. The 1000 returns includes illegal arrivals by all routes - which came to about 16000 in 2022.
A special mention for Kurdish entrepreneurship outside of FTSE small cap companies, for their succesful involvement in the alternative (*cough, cough, cough*) 'U.K leisure and recreational sector' which must be a darn profitable niche market I guess.
In fact they've had a head start in Sweden so much so that (funded via tax-relief as essential item?)AK 47 automatic assault rifles are required to protect cash flow and PE ratio's.
And nice to see 'South Wales Evening Post' front page headline reporting today about 'Nip Farms' being established in SW Wales with yet another alternative business initative involving properties of multiple occupation being used to house asylum seekers.
Boy oh boy (to quote WOKE cliche's) "these people offer diversity" and "multiculturalism is our strength". These small boat arrivals are going so well are they not?
With the exception of Afganitsan, Ukraine and Hong Kong, (the Refugee Family Reunion was been applied to tiny numbers) there are no safe and legal routes to the UK.
This means you must be on the shores to claim assylum.
This means small boats and massive paydays for people traffikers
I have never been able to understand why some believe that the creation of additional safe and legal routes would change the calculation of intending irregular migrants who would not qualify for them. Do we really think that young men from countries where the degree of risk of persecution is highly debateable will be at the front of the queue? It is true that the refugee family reunification scheme and the 3 refugee resettlement schemes involve quite small numbers, but conversely the 3 nationality-specific schemes (each of which has sub-schemes) involve high numbers. I am sympathetic to those latter schemes, but surely admitting large numbers in that way means we must be selective about what others are allowed in. In the YE June 2022 1,109,000 immigrants were admitted to the UK. This is larger than the figure for irregular migrants (about 82K), and takes no account of those emigrating, but it is the number of new arrivals who must be integrated into UK society, I'd say that that is a daunting task and the limited nature of our success is beginning to show. Can we really open the gates wider and not face really serious consequences?
I have never been able to understand why some believe that the creation of additional safe and legal routes would change the calculation of intending irregular migrants who would not qualify for them. Do we really think that young men from countries where the degree of risk of persecution is highly debateable will be at the front of the queue? It is true that the refugee family reunification scheme and the 3 refugee resettlement schemes involve quite small numbers, but conversely the 3 nationality-specific schemes (each of which has sub-schemes) involve high numbers. I am sympathetic to those latter schemes, but surely admitting large numbers in that way means we must be selective about what others are allowed in. In the YE June 2022 1,109,000 immigrants were admitted to the UK. This is larger than the figure for irregular migrants (about 82K), and takes no account of those emigrating, but it is the number of new arrivals who must be integrated into UK society, I'd say that that is a daunting task and the limited nature of our success is beginning to show. Can we really open the gates wider and not face really serious consequences?
Ahhhhhh "safe and legal" routes of type with implementation that ends up making the U.K vastly more easier to enter illegally by making it "legal" and with zero/sub-standard stringent documentation criteria/vetting/barriers? And at the very same time lays on free transport no matter what?
Anyone who thinks that it's perfectly fine for OCG's members, narco-state drug gang members, on-the-run fugitives, criminals and justice escapees etc to be given fast-track/rubber-stamped citizenship, despite the fact they arrived empty handed with a new alias in thought/mind only? Is an imbecile with the common sense, critical thinking ability and rationality of a 4 year old child.
A form of safe and legal route has been provided in the U.S.A courtesy of the U.S governments orders to cut barbed wire. And looked at the catastrophic consequences of that!
But they could. Instead of sound bites and poor policy, they could staff border force, process applications and deport people
Instead it's all about creating distractions and getting us to tear into each other whilst they rob the public purse for their cronies
How can you deport people when there are so many appeals and loopholes for lawyers & judges to exploit under the umbrella of the ECHR.
The only way to deport illegals migrants is to get out of the ECHR, but even if the UK government were to withdraw from the treaty, some judge would rule it to be unlawful, this country is well fooked.
We should open the gates to everyone that wants to come here.
How can you deport people when there are so many appeals and loopholes for lawyers & judges to exploit under the umbrella of the ECHR.
The only way to deport illegals migrants is to get out of the ECHR, but even if the UK government were to withdraw from the treaty, some judge would rule it to be unlawful, this country is well fooked.
We should open the gates to everyone that wants to come here.
Society will pay a very heavy price, because a message has been sent out to the entire world that the U.K is open for buisness to anyone and everyone. The Nazi justice escapees used Argentina, if only borders were then, what they are now hey!
Someone could be a child murderer serial killer on the verge of being caught in his own homeland. No problem just turn up in the future at a "safe and legal" processing hub without any documentation, all sorted!
I have never been able to understand why some believe that the creation of additional safe and legal routes would change the calculation of intending irregular migrants who would not qualify for them. Do we really think that young men from countries where the degree of risk of persecution is highly debateable will be at the front of the queue? It is true that the refugee family reunification scheme and the 3 refugee resettlement schemes involve quite small numbers, but conversely the 3 nationality-specific schemes (each of which has sub-schemes) involve high numbers. I am sympathetic to those latter schemes, but surely admitting large numbers in that way means we must be selective about what others are allowed in. In the YE June 2022 1,109,000 immigrants were admitted to the UK. This is larger than the figure for irregular migrants (about 82K), and takes no account of those emigrating, but it is the number of new arrivals who must be integrated into UK society, I'd say that that is a daunting task and the limited nature of our success is beginning to show. Can we really open the gates wider and not face really serious consequences?
I can think of three reasons to start off.
First, if there were safe and legal routes it would dramatically reduce the need for people traffickers
Second, if these centres were based on the continent, we’d have control over processing and who came in.
And third, if these were available I think there’d be far more consensus on punitive treatment for those who ignore them.
Some seem to think that being anti the Rwanda policy means you want open borders. It doesn’t. Most are against it because it’s stupid, unworkable and expensive.
First, if there were safe and legal routes it would dramatically reduce the need for people traffickers
Second, if these centres were based on the continent, we’d have control over processing and who came in.
And third, if these were available I think there’d be far more consensus on punitive treatment for those who ignore them.
Some seem to think that being anti the Rwanda policy means you want open borders. It doesn’t. Most are against it because it’s stupid, unworkable and expensive.
The first is the one that I find completely implausible. The former head of the UK Border Force said as much. The problem is that young single men would have less priority than families and women, many of whom would be likely to come from the refugee camps nearer unsafe countries, rather than from safe Western European countries (mainly France as Belgium handles the problem better). These young men would still constitute a ready market for the services of the people smugglers. The result would be new routes plus a continuing cross-channel problem.
Processing of applications in Western Europe is a rather different issue. It might solve the problem of returns for those whose applications are rejected (deportations from the UK are impossible for large numbers of cases). However, this would perpetuate the problem of the unfairness of putting young single men in safe countries at the head of the queue. If you put the processing centres in the refugee camps you are back to the problem that the young men in Europe turn to the people smugglers.
The third claimed advantage of support for more punitive treatment of law breakers is also problematic. This is because the legal framework would be unchanged and the provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention have been interpreted as preventing such sanctions.
Further to the earlier discussion of safe routes see this link.
The first is the one that I find completely implausible. The former head of the UK Border Force said as much. The problem is that young single men would have less priority than families and women, many of whom would be likely to come from the refugee camps nearer unsafe countries, rather than from safe Western European countries (mainly France as Belgium handles the problem better). These young men would still constitute a ready market for the services of the people smugglers. The result would be new routes plus a continuing cross-channel problem.
Processing of applications in Western Europe is a rather different issue. It might solve the problem of returns for those whose applications are rejected (deportations from the UK are impossible for large numbers of cases). However, this would perpetuate the problem of the unfairness of putting young single men in safe countries at the head of the queue. If you put the processing centres in the refugee camps you are back to the problem that the young men in Europe turn to the people smugglers.
The third claimed advantage of support for more punitive treatment of law breakers is also problematic. This is because the legal framework would be unchanged and the provisions of the 1951 Refugee Convention have been interpreted as preventing such sanctions.
Further to the earlier discussion of safe routes see this link.
Indeed, and if point 1 doesn't work there is no benefit - quite the opposite in fact.
P.S. Your link to full fact involves a rather fine semantic distinction as the existing UK schemes confer refugee status (or straightforward ILR) without the intermediate step of waiting in the UK as an asylum seeker and then gaining refugee status.
There are several safe and legal routes for certain persons to gain refuge in the UK.
First, if there were safe and legal routes it would dramatically reduce the need for people traffickers
Second, if these centres were based on the continent, we’d have control over processing and who came in.
And third, if these were available I think there’d be far more consensus on punitive treatment for those who ignore them.
Some seem to think that being anti the Rwanda policy means you want open borders. It doesn’t. Most are against it because it’s stupid, unworkable and expensive.
"Second, if these centres were based on the continent, we’d have control over processing and who came in"
2 questions. 1 which countries do you think would allow us to open the centres, considering, where would those applying would stay and be fed while their application was processed.
2 Don't you think that those without a legitimate right to enter the UK, and those that had enough money to pay the people traffickers to jump the queue, would still take the risk in a dinghies.
"Second, if these centres were based on the continent, we’d have control over processing and who came in"
2 questions. 1 which countries do you think would allow us to open the centres, considering, where would those applying would stay and be fed while their application was processed.
2 Don't you think that those without a legitimate right to enter the UK, and those that had enough money to pay the people traffickers to jump the queue, would still take the risk in a dinghies.
The funniest thing of all is those that think a "safe and legal route" is going to be the silver bullet to stop illegal entry into the U.K.
If it becomes a WOKE-soft touch farce? It'll encourage even more to come in illegally and if it’s hard-line they will still come by small boats anyhow.
Streetwise and 'switched-on' people in the U.S and over here have noticed that the more you accomodate people and the more you bend over backwards to aid and abette their plans, the more that will come in after that.
What we have all got to hope and pray for is the election of a Labour government is not viewed by wannabe entrants to the U.K in exactly the same way that people who wished to cross the border illegally into the U.S did after a change of governemnt.
If it is? It'll be open floodgates time with an absolute catastrophe in the making!!!!
How can you deport people when there are so many appeals and loopholes for lawyers & judges to exploit under the umbrella of the ECHR.
The only way to deport illegals migrants is to get out of the ECHR, but even if the UK government were to withdraw from the treaty, some judge would rule it to be unlawful, this country is well fooked.
We should open the gates to everyone that wants to come here.
There really aren't any loopholes. We take far less than other countries yet we act like we take all and sundry.
With climate change and geopolitical instability there simply isn't going to be an end to mass migration, we need an international and joined up approach to this issue, which I won't hold my breath for
The funniest thing of all is those that think a "safe and legal route" is going to be the silver bullet to stop illegal entry into the U.K.
If it becomes a WOKE-soft touch farce? It'll encourage even more to come in illegally and if it’s hard-line they will still come by small boats anyhow.
Streetwise and 'switched-on' people in the U.S and over here have noticed that the more you accomodate people and the more you bend over backwards to aid and abette their plans, the more that will come in after that.
What we have all got to hope and pray for is the election of a Labour government is not viewed by wannabe entrants to the U.K in exactly the same way that people who wished to cross the border illegally into the U.S did after a change of governemnt.
If it is? It'll be open floodgates time with an absolute catastrophe in the making!!!!
First, if there were safe and legal routes it would dramatically reduce the need for people traffickers
Second, if these centres were based on the continent, we’d have control over processing and who came in.
And third, if these were available I think there’d be far more consensus on punitive treatment for those who ignore them.
Some seem to think that being anti the Rwanda policy means you want open borders. It doesn’t. Most are against it because it’s stupid, unworkable and expensive.
Safe and legal roisters! Yiu miss the point. They shouldn’t be coming here en masse,no matter who brings them in. This is the point. We are full,our resources are stretched to breaking point .
The issue is where we send them to after they land Frankly,I’m not that bothered. Our country first and last.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
