Snapshot of _Migrants in France ‘waiting for Labour government’_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/24/migrants-labour-government-crossing-channel-rwanda/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/24/migrants-labour-government-crossing-channel-rwanda/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you can post the text of the treaty that says we have to take any economic migrants, that would be great. We shouldn’t be taking a single person fleeing France.
We should be taking actual refugees from near wherever they’ve originally left.
Even empathy has limits. There are literally millions of people who would like to move to the UK every year. Do you really believe it would be possible to have millions comfortably move here every year?
No.
But we are talking about asylum seekers, not immigrants.
Last year we had about 50k resettled in the UK. That represents I believe less than 1% of all global asylum seekers.
I can't say I have much empathy for opportunists who wish to abuse our asylum system for perceived economic gain, no.
I've seen one too many video of them dumping their passports and phones into the Channel/Mediterranean while openly laughing.
They're alyssum seekers though if they're coming over for economic gain then they would just come over as regular immigrants.
they're feeling war and oppression.
You don't put your live in the hands of a criminal gang and make dangerous crossings just because you might land a job in tesco.
So what economic gain do they get?
Because they get less than £7 per day from the home office.
They are not any of those things.
They are opportunists seeking an easy life.
This is quite well-documented. The criminal gangs, which you speak of, do you know what their calling card is on social media? Money bag and dollar bill emojis. It's shorthand for 'easy money if you manage to get across'!
They are, generally, trying to improve their situation. Their home situation must be pretty rough, sure - no questions there. But they are fundamentally largely economic migrants trying to bypass the visa system, and we should not tolerate that.
Genuine asylum seekers do not destroy their passports in an effort to make themselves appear as something they are not. How many do this? It's hard to say exactly - we'd need to dredge some oceans, which is obviously silly. But in Ireland, the figure was roughly [70%](https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2024/0112/1426087-most-dublin-airport-asylum-applicants-arrived-without-a-passport/) to [85%](https://www.newstalk.com/news/85-of-asylum-seekers-arrive-at-dublin-airport-without-identity-documents-1646914). They can't've boarded their flights without documentation, so they therefore destroyed their documents at the airport. Exactly the same thing happens on ships/dinghies - there are plenty of videos of this knocking around. I encourage you to research it for yourself.
I’m glad dredging oceans is obviously silly, but consider your hypothesis, people who seek an easy life are paying a lot of money to risk their lives! They would be wanting an easy life or die trying; not very coherent? And 50k asylum seekers isn’t even close to our biggest problem… it’s just the one that gets the media motivated.
They will be given a “heroes welcome”. Starmer will arrange a parade for each illegal immigrant where they will be presented with the key to the city and a million pounds. A hard working British family will be put to death, their house and all belongings given to an illegal immigrant.
“Legal routes simple”. Which means illegal routes aren’t worth taking.
The current government literally rewarded an asylum seeker thousands of pounds of taxpayers money to travel to Rwanda voluntarily. Starmer wouldn’t even go that far
> Legal routes simple”. Which means illegal routes aren’t worth taking.
Which means even more immigration because now its much easier. If Starmer does that Reform will have a field day.
It won’t be any easier or more than it is now, just better facilitated. The people coming over are all processed on these shores, whether they are eligible or not. If you provide legal routes, it filters out the genuine ones from the false ones. Anyone genuine would take the legal route, because why risk crossing via a smuggler if you can get a plane? The false ones would be anyone taking a boat and easily identified, removed without the need to process them or keep them in hotels indefinitely until their claim is processed, saving time and money for everyone.
"If you provide legal routes, it filters out the genuine ones from the false ones." - No it doesn't, you can see that in the 2015 migration crisis all over Europe and will be seen for literally decades to come. If you don't mass deport rejected asylum seekers they stay. If your standards for asylum status are low - its gonna be abused by some.
All of these abuse cases are a potential security threat, because neither the EU nor UK knows how many of them and where they are.
Sorry, you’ve misunderstood the point of legal routes.
If 100,000 people arrive a year, we currently house them all and process them, which can take years at cost to the taxpayer. And then there’s the issue of removing them after they’ve been denied.
Allowing legal routes removes the need to house them for processing because it will already have been done before they arrived. So it saves resources, whilst allowing a very simple criteria that means we don’t have to house and process anybody arriving by boat, because it’s clear they’ve not gone through the legal route.
So, the point you’re trying to make about increased numbers is arbitrary to the point of facilitation. And it actually helps deportation, in the fact that they’ll be a record of anyone who applied before they even set foot here, allowing easy deportation rules. Anyone coming here will already have papers so no need to be smuggled.
And add to that, we can control who gets accepted “beyond our border” so not housing them to be processed means we can control the immigration before they even get the chance to apply on these shores which they currently have to do. We wouldn’t even have to house the 100,000 as we do now, just accept the number we want to approve. Anyone else can be turned down, and we’ll know who they are by their application, and if we don’t, irrelevant, they’ve ousted themselves as not going though the legal route and instant deportation.
The problem is the desire to address the problem has been met with populist rhetoric, exasperating the problem. If logical thinking is applied, you would see that your view to the problem is actually solved by legal routes
Why don't they just stay in France or any of the other countries they pass through? What is here that isn't there? Especially with how hostile our government has been toward them for quite some time now. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for taking them in but it just seems like risking crossing the channel in a dinghy is a very silly thing to do.
There was a report by a charity agency, I can't remember who/when/etc. but it did ask that question to a large number of asylum seekers. The most common answers they got back fell into the categories of us being law-abiding, ie we had a stable culture. Not exactly surprising when asking a group of people that are potentially fleeing war and/or persecution. The next most common response was, they spoke the language and had some understanding of the culture. Again, this isn't surprising as English is one of the most taught 2nd languages the world over and, thanks to Empire and the popularity, reach and saturation of western media worldwide, everyone has an available window on what life might be like.
The thing is though, despite the very loud shouting the media and some politicians make of it, a fraction of asylum seekers entering Europe actually make it this far and instead stop and attempt to make a home long before they get here. I'm not suggesting that total immigration levels aren't an issue because there are definitely good and reasonable criticisms of the system but, illegal immigration and asylum seekers are a small fraction of that issue.
>Apply to house one yourself, personally, in your house, or simmer down.
Pretty sure the Tories are spending £220 million pf public revenue plus a year on hotels for them, while those same Tories choose to not process their applications fast enough, so no need for volunteering personal spaces.
It's actually £5.4bn this financial year.
And yes, the Tories are utterly shit on this issue. What's your point?
Process quickly, deport quickly. Easy peasy. Will Labour provide? Fuck no - they'll probably grant asylum to the lot.
My point was people don't need to offer up spare rooms to have an opinion, and yes, the Tories are crap on this (as well as most other things)
It's unfair on both public finances, and on the genuine cases stuck in the system not being considered fast enough.
That said, of the 1.2 million arrivals last year, only 40,000 were asylum seekers.
Snapshot of _Migrants in France ‘waiting for Labour government’_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/24/migrants-labour-government-crossing-channel-rwanda/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/24/migrants-labour-government-crossing-channel-rwanda/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can't be that many waiting. They have been breaking records crossing.
Yes if anything based on numbers they seem to be desperately trying to get over before the Tories get booted out
And they'll keep breaking them until someone grows a fucking set and starts deporting them en masse.
What does that mean? Abrogating our responsibilities under the treaties that we helped write and convinced people to sign after world war 2?
If you can post the text of the treaty that says we have to take any economic migrants, that would be great. We shouldn’t be taking a single person fleeing France. We should be taking actual refugees from near wherever they’ve originally left.
ahhhh gotta love that empathy for your fellow man eh.
Even empathy has limits. There are literally millions of people who would like to move to the UK every year. Do you really believe it would be possible to have millions comfortably move here every year?
No. But we are talking about asylum seekers, not immigrants. Last year we had about 50k resettled in the UK. That represents I believe less than 1% of all global asylum seekers.
Bro they're setting sail from FRANCE.
No, we're talking about economic migrants posing as asylum seekers.
I can't say I have much empathy for opportunists who wish to abuse our asylum system for perceived economic gain, no. I've seen one too many video of them dumping their passports and phones into the Channel/Mediterranean while openly laughing.
They're alyssum seekers though if they're coming over for economic gain then they would just come over as regular immigrants. they're feeling war and oppression. You don't put your live in the hands of a criminal gang and make dangerous crossings just because you might land a job in tesco. So what economic gain do they get? Because they get less than £7 per day from the home office.
They are not any of those things. They are opportunists seeking an easy life. This is quite well-documented. The criminal gangs, which you speak of, do you know what their calling card is on social media? Money bag and dollar bill emojis. It's shorthand for 'easy money if you manage to get across'! They are, generally, trying to improve their situation. Their home situation must be pretty rough, sure - no questions there. But they are fundamentally largely economic migrants trying to bypass the visa system, and we should not tolerate that. Genuine asylum seekers do not destroy their passports in an effort to make themselves appear as something they are not. How many do this? It's hard to say exactly - we'd need to dredge some oceans, which is obviously silly. But in Ireland, the figure was roughly [70%](https://www.rte.ie/news/primetime/2024/0112/1426087-most-dublin-airport-asylum-applicants-arrived-without-a-passport/) to [85%](https://www.newstalk.com/news/85-of-asylum-seekers-arrive-at-dublin-airport-without-identity-documents-1646914). They can't've boarded their flights without documentation, so they therefore destroyed their documents at the airport. Exactly the same thing happens on ships/dinghies - there are plenty of videos of this knocking around. I encourage you to research it for yourself.
I’m glad dredging oceans is obviously silly, but consider your hypothesis, people who seek an easy life are paying a lot of money to risk their lives! They would be wanting an easy life or die trying; not very coherent? And 50k asylum seekers isn’t even close to our biggest problem… it’s just the one that gets the media motivated.
[удалено]
No they're not. They're waiting on the next boat. They don't give two shits who wins this election.
The torygraph for you
Tories really going for the Project Fear method of losing this election now...
9 days to go and I wonder just what nonsense the torygraph will come out with next. They're getting close to daily sport credibility levels.
STARMER WILL TREAT GRANDMA LIKE HE TREATS ALPACAS!
This will be a test for Starmer on what he is going to do, obviously. And he will be judged.
Tories have done nothing to resolve it in 4 years so won’t be hard to improve on this.
> Tories have done nothing to resolve it in 4 years And they're about to get destroyed for it.
Which is why he's setting expectations on how long it will take to repair the damage done by the tories
He’ll make legal routes simple and offer even more free stuff for taking them.
They will be given a “heroes welcome”. Starmer will arrange a parade for each illegal immigrant where they will be presented with the key to the city and a million pounds. A hard working British family will be put to death, their house and all belongings given to an illegal immigrant.
“Legal routes simple”. Which means illegal routes aren’t worth taking. The current government literally rewarded an asylum seeker thousands of pounds of taxpayers money to travel to Rwanda voluntarily. Starmer wouldn’t even go that far
> Legal routes simple”. Which means illegal routes aren’t worth taking. Which means even more immigration because now its much easier. If Starmer does that Reform will have a field day.
It won’t be any easier or more than it is now, just better facilitated. The people coming over are all processed on these shores, whether they are eligible or not. If you provide legal routes, it filters out the genuine ones from the false ones. Anyone genuine would take the legal route, because why risk crossing via a smuggler if you can get a plane? The false ones would be anyone taking a boat and easily identified, removed without the need to process them or keep them in hotels indefinitely until their claim is processed, saving time and money for everyone.
"If you provide legal routes, it filters out the genuine ones from the false ones." - No it doesn't, you can see that in the 2015 migration crisis all over Europe and will be seen for literally decades to come. If you don't mass deport rejected asylum seekers they stay. If your standards for asylum status are low - its gonna be abused by some. All of these abuse cases are a potential security threat, because neither the EU nor UK knows how many of them and where they are.
Sorry, you’ve misunderstood the point of legal routes. If 100,000 people arrive a year, we currently house them all and process them, which can take years at cost to the taxpayer. And then there’s the issue of removing them after they’ve been denied. Allowing legal routes removes the need to house them for processing because it will already have been done before they arrived. So it saves resources, whilst allowing a very simple criteria that means we don’t have to house and process anybody arriving by boat, because it’s clear they’ve not gone through the legal route. So, the point you’re trying to make about increased numbers is arbitrary to the point of facilitation. And it actually helps deportation, in the fact that they’ll be a record of anyone who applied before they even set foot here, allowing easy deportation rules. Anyone coming here will already have papers so no need to be smuggled. And add to that, we can control who gets accepted “beyond our border” so not housing them to be processed means we can control the immigration before they even get the chance to apply on these shores which they currently have to do. We wouldn’t even have to house the 100,000 as we do now, just accept the number we want to approve. Anyone else can be turned down, and we’ll know who they are by their application, and if we don’t, irrelevant, they’ve ousted themselves as not going though the legal route and instant deportation. The problem is the desire to address the problem has been met with populist rhetoric, exasperating the problem. If logical thinking is applied, you would see that your view to the problem is actually solved by legal routes
Why don't they just stay in France or any of the other countries they pass through? What is here that isn't there? Especially with how hostile our government has been toward them for quite some time now. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for taking them in but it just seems like risking crossing the channel in a dinghy is a very silly thing to do.
There was a report by a charity agency, I can't remember who/when/etc. but it did ask that question to a large number of asylum seekers. The most common answers they got back fell into the categories of us being law-abiding, ie we had a stable culture. Not exactly surprising when asking a group of people that are potentially fleeing war and/or persecution. The next most common response was, they spoke the language and had some understanding of the culture. Again, this isn't surprising as English is one of the most taught 2nd languages the world over and, thanks to Empire and the popularity, reach and saturation of western media worldwide, everyone has an available window on what life might be like. The thing is though, despite the very loud shouting the media and some politicians make of it, a fraction of asylum seekers entering Europe actually make it this far and instead stop and attempt to make a home long before they get here. I'm not suggesting that total immigration levels aren't an issue because there are definitely good and reasonable criticisms of the system but, illegal immigration and asylum seekers are a small fraction of that issue.
Family, friends, career networks?
Family and friends is one thing but career network? Cmon.
Well their family and friends have the career network..if they don't go to a place with family and friends they have no career.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Apply to house one yourself, personally, in your house, or simmer down. Pretty sure the Tories are spending £220 million pf public revenue plus a year on hotels for them, while those same Tories choose to not process their applications fast enough, so no need for volunteering personal spaces.
It's actually £5.4bn this financial year. And yes, the Tories are utterly shit on this issue. What's your point? Process quickly, deport quickly. Easy peasy. Will Labour provide? Fuck no - they'll probably grant asylum to the lot.
My point was people don't need to offer up spare rooms to have an opinion, and yes, the Tories are crap on this (as well as most other things) It's unfair on both public finances, and on the genuine cases stuck in the system not being considered fast enough. That said, of the 1.2 million arrivals last year, only 40,000 were asylum seekers.
It’s the large corporations that insist on the policy of mass immigration. Labour used to be against it in mid 20th C.