The UK Migrant Crisis

[Otis]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

A bit difficult if, for example, you're an Afghan opponent of the Taliban or you're in the middle of a civil war in Sudan or you're an opponent of Assad in bombed-to-fvck Syria. 

Admittedly easier for most Albanians (unless you're in a tiny minority suffering oppression there) - and I'd imagine that the vast majority of Albanians do not qualify for asylum.....there seems to have been some progress in slashing numbers coming from Albania, anyway.

Afghans and Syrians can use the legal routes. 

Albania is classed as a safe country who are actively looking to join the EU.

[Otis]

15 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Decent overview of Labour immigration and asylum policies here: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/amid-the-furore-where-does-labour-stand/5115463.article

 

Some key bits:

 

- In this speech, the Labour leader identified migration as ‘part of our national story’ but said the British economy’s immigration dependency must end. He also said changes to the points-based immigration system would require new conditions for British businesses, such as improved pay, investment in technology and a greater emphasis on training.

 

- In her 2022 Labour party conference speech, Yvette Cooper promised that the party would cancel the ‘deeply damaging, extortionately expensive, unworkable and unethical Rwanda plan’ and redirect funding towards a cross-border police unit to tackle criminal trafficking gangs.

 

- In response to the Illegal Migration Bill, the Labour party outlined its plan to stop small boat crossings including:

• cracking down on smuggler gangs through the creation of a new cross-border police unit;
• clearing the asylum backlog and ending the use of hotel accommodation through the implementation of fast-track asylum processing and safe country returns;
• signing a new cooperation agreement with France and other partner countries on family reunions and returns;
• reforming safe and legal routes for refugees; and
• tackling humanitarian crises at source by helping refugees in their region.

That's fantastic. If or when Labour are the ruling government we can expect to see an end to this migration crisis. 

[Alf Bentley]

8 minutes ago, Otis said:

Afghans and Syrians can use the legal routes. 

 

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/2021-01/Amnesty%20International%20UK%20-%20Safe%20and%20Legal%20Routes%20Briefing_0.pdf

 

"References are sometimes made, including by Ministers and officials, to what are termed ‘first safe countries’. There is no rule or principle of international law that requires someone to make his, her or their asylum claim in such a country. A person may have good reason, including family or other connection, to wish to seek asylum in a different country".

 

"Are safe and legal routes available now?

It is necessary to distinguish the following:

• people seeking asylum

• people already recognised as refugees

• family members of people recognised as refugees in the UK

As explained further below, safe and legal routes are not available in connection with each of these. Safe and legal routes are available to some people already recognised as refugees and to some family members of people recognised as refugees in the UK. The adequacy of these routes is a matter of concern, including the extent to which certain people are excluded from them. However, there are no such routes available to people seeking asylum".

[Tommy Fresh]

17 minutes ago, Otis said:

Afghans and Syrians can use the legal routes. 

Albania is classed as a safe country who are actively looking to join the EU.

How easy is it do you think it is to go via legal routes in that situation? Much like in Sudan.

Edited 16 June 2023 by Tommy Fresh

[RobHawk]

35 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Decent overview of Labour immigration and asylum policies here: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/legal-updates/amid-the-furore-where-does-labour-stand/5115463.article

 

Some key bits:

 

- In this speech, the Labour leader identified migration as ‘part of our national story’ but said the British economy’s immigration dependency must end. He also said changes to the points-based immigration system would require new conditions for British businesses, such as improved pay, investment in technology and a greater emphasis on training.

 

- In her 2022 Labour party conference speech, Yvette Cooper promised that the party would cancel the ‘deeply damaging, extortionately expensive, unworkable and unethical Rwanda plan’ and redirect funding towards a cross-border police unit to tackle criminal trafficking gangs.

 

- In response to the Illegal Migration Bill, the Labour party outlined its plan to stop small boat crossings including:

• cracking down on smuggler gangs through the creation of a new cross-border police unit;
• clearing the asylum backlog and ending the use of hotel accommodation through the implementation of fast-track asylum processing and safe country returns;
• signing a new cooperation agreement with France and other partner countries on family reunions and returns;
• reforming safe and legal routes for refugees; and
• tackling humanitarian crises at source by helping refugees in their region.

Makes sense, glad I voted labour 👍

[Otis]

22 minutes ago, Tommy Fresh said:

How easy is it do you think to go via legal routes in that situation? Much like in Sudan.

The UK is not the only safe destination for those in Sudan. There are other close by safe countries.

[Tommy Fresh]

12 minutes ago, Otis said:

The UK is not the only safe destination for those in Sudan. There are other close by safe countries.

Yes and most do take refuge in those countries, but how many of those countries are capable of actually supporting a mass influx? How many probably have relatives in the UK not classified as immediate family hence why they'd make the journey here? 

[Otis]

16 minutes ago, Tommy Fresh said:

Yes and most do take refuge in those countries, but how many of those countries are capable of actually supporting a mass influx? How many probably have relatives in the UK not classified as immediate family hence why they'd make the journey here? 

Good question. I'd expect very few countries would cope with a mass of people, that would need housing and social care etc.

Maybe another question is in a Sudan type situation how many people should all countries volunteer to take?

[bovril]

13 hours ago, Zear0 said:

It's almost like it's in this state by design to rattle cages of those of a certain political alignment... 

Consveratism in this country is basically just now railing against things their policies helped bring about, so you may be right it's deliberate. 

[leicsmac]

17 minutes ago, Otis said:

Good question. I'd expect very few countries would cope with a mass of people, that would need housing and social care etc.

Maybe another question is in a Sudan type situation how many people should all countries volunteer to take?

... and yet the governments of the UK, among others, despite knowing the situation, seem incredibly disinclined to put forth the infrastructure related action necessary to deal with this problem as it stands now, let along on the future (where it will in all likelihood get much worse).

 

I wonder why that is?

 

(That's a rhetorical question to which I already have an obvious answer btw, no need to answer.)

Edited 16 June 2023 by leicsmac

[Finnegan]

Why are you all debating with someone whose position is "if they don't wanna die in boats they should just get a plane"? 

 

I accept the desire to have honest debate with people that have different views but only if that person actually wants a debate and is going to engage in good faith. 

 

What you all are doing is just having a yelling match with an idiot and, on the internet at least, the idiot always wins. 

[Innovindil]

Not many problems at all with people coming here who want to contribute. Or many particular problems with opening up more legal routes. The only major problem imo is the sheer numbers. Find it hard to believe we can possibly whip up infrastructure for some 600k extra people every year. 

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Why are you all debating with someone whose position is "if they don't wanna die in boats they should just get a plane"? 

 

I accept the desire to have honest debate with people that have different views but only if that person actually wants a debate and is going to engage in good faith. 

 

What you all are doing is just having a yelling match with an idiot and, on the internet at least, the idiot always wins. 

 

I don't see it like that.

 

Call me naive, but very occasionally if you debate with someone with apparently fixed, unreasonable views, they may engage in good faith.

More importantly, in a public forum you are not only debating with that individual. Other posters read and engage whose views might be less fixed.

 

Maybe I'm deluding myself, but I don't think this was a yelling match and I don't think Otis won.

[grobyfox1990]

22 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Why are you all debating with someone whose position is "if they don't wanna die in boats they should just get a plane"? 

 

I accept the desire to have honest debate with people that have different views but only if that person actually wants a debate and is going to engage in good faith. 

 

What you all are doing is just having a yelling match with an idiot and, on the internet at least, the idiot always wins. 

Who has that position. Bear in mind i can only see usernames when quoted, in my defence. I don't see any internet idiots on this thread, quite well balanced back n forth. No one seems to be yelling apart from you.

[leicsmac]

24 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Why are you all debating with someone whose position is "if they don't wanna die in boats they should just get a plane"? 

 

I accept the desire to have honest debate with people that have different views but only if that person actually wants a debate and is going to engage in good faith. 

 

What you all are doing is just having a yelling match with an idiot and, on the internet at least, the idiot always wins. 

 

11 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I don't see it like that.

 

Call me naive, but very occasionally if you debate with someone with apparently fixed, unreasonable views, they may engage in good faith.

More importantly, in a public forum you are not only debating with that individual. Other posters read and engage whose views might be less fixed.

 

Maybe I'm deluding myself, but I don't think this was a yelling match and I don't think Otis won.

Exactly this.

 

Just the same as engaging anti vaxxers or climate change ignorers on the Sci thread, I personally don't challenge those viewpoints because I think I can talk the person round, I do it because other people are watching and what they think is more important.

 

18 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Not many problems at all with people coming here who want to contribute. Or many particular problems with opening up more legal routes. The only major problem imo is the sheer numbers. Find it hard to believe we can possibly whip up infrastructure for some 600k extra people every year. 

Yep, it sure as shit wouldn't be easy to do that.

 

Problem is, this issue isn't going to go away and sooner or later the choice may be between at least trying to get that infrastructure done across a large part of the "developed" world or the death and suffering of a truly massive amount of people.

[Finnegan]

3 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

No one seems to be yelling apart from you.

 

[LiberalFox]

I'm not a fan of debating anyone who doesn't state a coherent position. For example when people talk about 'the first safe country', that's a position that argues that asylum seekers should seek refuge in the first 'safe' country they encounter and that means they believe the UK should take 0 asylum seekers and would only take refugees if for example there was a crisis in France that saw French people feeling across the channel or in the Republic of Ireland.

 

That's important because there's a difference to having a debate over the ethical question of whether the UK has an obligation to provide safe haven for asylum seekers at all, whether there should be a cap and if so what that number should be and whether there should be any flexibility. You can only debate solutions once you have some agreement over the aims of the policy.

 

You also have to ask yourself if this is something important to you, is this based on a personal situation or a situation that affects someone you care about? or it a fear over something that may happen in the future? I fear that a lot of 'politics' involves the likes of the Murdoch press generating crafted narratives to make people angry and fearful combined with right wing political parties validating those emotions. 

 

And also a lot of people on the internet are contrarian or provocative because they feed off the attention that receives.  

[yorkie1999]

3 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I'm not a fan of debating anyone who doesn't state a coherent position. For example when people talk about 'the first safe country', that's a position that argues that asylum seekers should seek refuge in the first 'safe' country they encounter and that means they believe the UK should take 0 asylum seekers and would only take refugees if for example there was a crisis in France that saw French people feeling across the channel or in the Republic of Ireland.

 

That's important because there's a difference to having a debate over the ethical question of whether the UK has an obligation to provide safe haven for asylum seekers at all, whether there should be a cap and if so what that number should be and whether there should be any flexibility. You can only debate solutions once you have some agreement over the aims of the policy.

 

You also have to ask yourself if this is something important to you, is this based on a personal situation or a situation that affects someone you care about? or it a fear over something that may happen in the future? I fear that a lot of 'politics' involves the likes of the Murdoch press generating crafted narratives to make people angry and fearful combined with right wing political parties validating those emotions. 

 

And also a lot of people on the internet are contrarian or provocative because they feed off the attention that receives.  

You can't have a cap on asylum seekers and you can't have a cap on illigal immigrants, but you can have a cap on migrants and it's the first 2 where the problem is coming from.

      If someone wants to migrate to the UK, fair enough but to turn up on a beach and claim political asylum is taking advantage when you probably know your case will take months/years to process and you will be fed and clothed and homed at someone elses expense and not have to contribute because you won't be able to get a job until you're a uk citizen. It's a bit like someone setting up camp on your front lawn and then expecting you to feed them and use your toilet because it's your property. This is the current crisis by the way, it's not being driven by climate change (we don't appear to be getting many bedouins rocking up because it's too hot in Egypt do we), it's being driven either by wars or by people not being happy with their current situation. 

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

You can't have a cap on asylum seekers and you can't have a cap on illigal immigrants, but you can have a cap on migrants and it's the first 2 where the problem is coming from.

      If someone wants to migrate to the UK, fair enough but to turn up on a beach and claim political asylum is taking advantage when you probably know your case will take months/years to process and you will be fed and clothed and homed at someone elses expense and not have to contribute because you won't be able to get a job until you're a uk citizen. It's a bit like someone setting up camp on your front lawn and then expecting you to feed them and use your toilet because it's your property. This is the current crisis by the way, it's not being driven by climate change (we don't appear to be getting many bedouins rocking up because it's too hot in Egypt do we), it's being driven either by wars or by people not being happy with their current situation. 

For now.

 

That will change, drastically, unless sufficient action is taken to address it.

 

Oh, and rising global temperatures = less food and potable water = more wars to control them = more refugees from those wars too.

[Sampson]

15 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

You can't have a cap on asylum seekers and you can't have a cap on illigal immigrants, but you can have a cap on migrants and it's the first 2 where the problem is coming from.

      If someone wants to migrate to the UK, fair enough but to turn up on a beach and claim political asylum is taking advantage when you probably know your case will take months/years to process and you will be fed and clothed and homed at someone elses expense and not have to contribute because you won't be able to get a job until you're a uk citizen. It's a bit like someone setting up camp on your front lawn and then expecting you to feed them and use your toilet because it's your property. This is the current crisis by the way, it's not being driven by climate change (we don't appear to be getting many bedouins rocking up because it's too hot in Egypt do we), it's being driven either by wars or by people not being happy with their current situation. 

But the reason the cases take years to process is because the Tories have actively cut civil service staff in the home office and constantly scapegoat and attack the civil service and in the latest budget announced more cuts.

 

The right-wing press constantly say how much per day it costs to house all these, but the solution then is clear - It would be much much, much cheaper to hire and train more staff at the home office to process the applications and greatly reduce the waiting times. The long waiting times are created through a lack of staff which is created entirely by design through austerity and The Tories 13 year long campaign to belittle civil servants and the public sector. 
 

There’s absolutely no reason applications should be taking that long to process - that is at best, if you’re being kind, entirely a failiure of the current Conservative government and their austerity and cuts to public services. - Or, given their constant belittling of the civil servants and the public sector, much more likely, that the home office processing system was left to rot by design 

Edited 16 June 2023 by Sampson

[Otis]

These discussions are interesting and needed. Honestly it's great to hear different points of view, although so great to be verbally abused, I'm thick skinned, ill handle it, anyway some ideas are workable and some aren't, but that's the point of these forums. To shoot anybody down who has a different opinion results in a unhelpful, unhealthy echo chamber. 

 

So far the main point of view is that it's the Tories fault and once Labour are in power it'll all be rosie. Time will tell is suppose.

But what no-one wants to see continue is migrants risking their lives crossing the Channel in rubber dinghies.

[grobyfox1990]

2 minutes ago, Otis said:

These discussions are interesting and needed. Honestly it's great to hear different points of view, although so great to be verbally abused, I'm thick skinned, ill handle it, anyway some ideas are workable and some aren't, but that's the point of these forums. To shoot anybody down who has a different opinion results in a unhelpful, unhealthy echo chamber. 

 

So far the main point of view is that it's the Tories fault and once Labour are in power it'll all be rosie. Time will tell is suppose.

But what no-one wants to see continue is migrants risking their lives crossing the Channel in rubber dinghies.

Don't listen to anyone abusing you. It's 'middle aged man trying to stay relevant' disease, they'll have a pint of bitter and the 80s music channel on soon enough. Actually that sounds quite good...

[yorkie1999]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

For now.

 

That will change, drastically, unless sufficient action is taken to address it.

 

Oh, and rising global temperatures = less food and potable water = more wars to control them = more refugees from those wars too.

Yes you're right and that will be a massive humanitarian issue that the UK won't be able to cope with, there won't be enough food for a start so buy youself a gun co you're gonna need it, but at the moment the problem is coming from gangs making a shed load of money conducting illigal boat crossings and smuggling people accross the channel who are really no differnt to slave traders because they don't give a shit about the welfare of the people they transport .  

[yorkie1999]

15 minutes ago, Otis said:

These discussions are interesting and needed. Honestly it's great to hear different points of view, although so great to be verbally abused, I'm thick skinned, ill handle it, anyway some ideas are workable and some aren't, but that's the point of these forums. To shoot anybody down who has a different opinion results in a unhelpful, unhealthy echo chamber. 

 

So far the main point of view is that it's the Tories fault and once Labour are in power it'll all be rosie. Time will tell is suppose.

But what no-one wants to see continue is migrants risking their lives crossing the Channel in rubber dinghies.

The only reason it'll be all rosie if labour get in power is because they'll change the law on the definition of illigal immigrants so they'll no longer be illigal, and probably give people smugglers a new title such as welfare transporters.

Edited 16 June 2023 by yorkie1999

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Yes you're right and that will be a massive humanitarian issue that the UK won't be able to cope with, there won't be enough food for a start so buy youself a gun co you're gonna need it, but at the moment the problem is coming from gangs making a shed load of money conducting illigal boat crossings and smuggling people accross the channel who are really no differnt to slave traders because they don't give a shit about the welfare of the people they transport .  

Nah, fvck that noise - not accepting the death and suffering of a hell of a lot of people as a fait accompli. That shit is entirely unconscionable social Darwinism.

 

On the current topic, taking the power out of the hands of those criminal gangs by offering better legal options would be a good place to start.