UK asylum seekers

[malumbu]

All credit to the trawler that saved many lives yesterday and that they are only commenting on how proud they were in doing this.

A quick look on line - why do people come to UK rather than stay in the continent?

Language

Family members already here

Horrific conditions for some sleeping rough in Northern France

Useful report on statistics

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/

6 % of immigrants are asylum seekers

Add to this asylum applications far larger in France than UK

So what does our government do? Make it much harder to apply for asylum outside of the UK leading to desparate people paying to come over in flimsy dinghies? Hopefully there will be a turning point in public opinion resulting in a more humanitarian approach.

I hope I've got my facts and views right, interested to hear from others

[malumbu]

I appear to be discussing this with myself. A shame that this was a great place for broader discussion but now very quiet.

I see that Cruella has got her way and can now send asylum seekers to Rwanda for processing. Sounds like a solution from another age.

[Chick]

I think it odd that both Cruela and Patel are the children of immigrants and yet both are hostile to immigrants whether refugees or they are fleeing human rights abuses or fleeing countries we have had a hand in bombing. Personally I would welcome all.

[TheCat]

I think it odd that both Cruela and Patel are the children of immigrants and yet both are hostile to immigrants whether refugees or they are fleeing human rights abuses or fleeing countries we have had a hand in bombing. Personally I would welcome all.

 

I don't think either are particularly hostile to immigration overall. They are clearly hostile towards 'illegal' immigration or uncontrolled immigration. Legal , controlled immigration is actually materially increased in recent years (according to migration watch..."There were 122,266 decisions on applications for settlement in the UK in the year ending June 2022, 29% more than in 2019").

In that context, being the children of immigrants makes perfect sense i guess...as one could take the view that 'my parents did it the 'right' way, why should others not do the same?'.....

I understand the further consideration of asylum seekers, and that is obviously a different situation. I suspect most of the political and societiel 'outrage' over the boats is around the perception (rightly or wrongly) that many aren't genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution, but are 'queue jumpers' not doing things through the normal channels....

My own view is that rather than expensive, populist, gesture politics (like the Rwanda plan)....the government should invest in capacity to process asylum applications quickly, and invest in ability to enforce removal for those cases which are deemed not genuine....

Edited December 20, 2022 by TheCat

[zerkalo]

I find the argument that the government's migration policy isn't particularly hostile to immigrants and refugees rather disingenuous. To be more precise, it is the government’s arguments I have an issue with despite the recent High Court ruling about the Rwanda deportations. Being legal doesn’t mean it’s also the right thing to do. I would like to see more safe routes opened for refugees and asylum seekers. That is, in my view, the proper way to address the perilous Channel boat crossings and avoid future tragedies which is what the government claims is its aim.

As long as those safe routes are not available, people will always try to find ways to reach safety. Perhaps the UK government could spend more time and effort trying to deport those who have genuinely failed in their asylum applications (very few have been deported) rather than putting the lives of those actually in need in danger.

Some good analysis of the ruling on the Rwanda plan here https://freemovement.org.uk/high-court-rules-rwanda-plan-is-lawful/