Immigration/asylum for UK profit

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

OK, like it or not, immigration is an issue in the UK, especially around 'the boats'.

Immigration has it's place and without immigrants things like the health service would.probably grind to a halt.

So,.focuased on the boats,.as a group of business savvy people, what would you recommend to tackle the situation to reduce the costs to the UK and start tackling the issue.

I will start by suggesting that the UK sets up reception centres on France where we take the payments that would have gone to the people smugglers, bring the asylum seekers over to the UK and then process them.

This means that the smugglers would be starved out of the chain by us bringing everyone over. On the basis that if we do not bring these people over they will pay criminals and then go through processing, if we can cut the crims out of the chain and get paid for it and then still deport the 30%? who fail to pass the asylum test, we.are financially better of.

Any other ideas?

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

OK, like it or not, immigration is an issue in the UK, especially around 'the boats'.

Immigration has it's place and without immigrants things like the health service would.probably grind to a halt.

So,.focuased on the boats,.as a group of business savvy people, what would you recommend to tackle the situation to reduce the costs to the UK and start tackling the issue.

I will start by suggesting that the UK sets up reception centres on France where we take the payments that would have gone to the people smugglers, bring the asylum seekers over to the UK and then process them.

This means that the smugglers would be starved out of the chain by us bringing everyone over. On the basis that if we do not bring these people over they will pay criminals and then go through processing, if we can cut the crims out of the chain and get paid for it and then still deport the 30%? who fail to pass the asylum test, we.are financially better of.

Any other ideas?

It seems like your assuming those coming over by boat are genuine asylum seekers Paul?
My understanding is that they are not, that most wouldn't meet the criteria to stay.

We have to shut the door. If you come over by boat, no matter how good your credentials are you cannot stay. That would put the smugglers out of business overnight.

France is a safe country, as are others that 'migrants' travel through. We have to remove the incentives that lead people to come to the UK.

 

[japancool]

The smugglers are a response to demand. They do not create the problem.

They come by boat because there are no other routes for them, and 65% of them are granted asylum, which suggests that they ARE genuine asylum seekers.

Why was it ok to accept a large number of Ukrainian asylum seekers, and not those fleeing Syria (when it was at war) or Afghanistan?

Provide an asylum processing centre in France. Then deny further claims from anyone rejected there.

We have to shut the door. If you come over by boat, no matter how good your credentials are you cannot stay.

How else do you suggest someone seeking asylum with good credentials to arrive? Swim?

 

[japancool]

OK, like it or not, immigration is an issue in the UK, especially around 'the boats'.

It's interesting that you did place legal and irregular immigration (i.e. asylum) without making a distinction in the thread title. The vast majority of non-British people in the UK are here completely legally, and are not seeking asylum. They applied for, and were granted visas.

 

[japancool]

what would you recommend to tackle the situation to reduce the costs to the UK

As above, an asylum triage centre in France. Tighten the criteria, so people with weak and dubious claims, or are economic migrants don't make it into the process in the first place. But since 65% of asylum seekers do receive it, that suggests that more of them are genuine than are not.

Allow them to take work in sectors that have shortages, like agriculture, while waiting for a decision. Ensure minimum wage legislation is enforced, so they aren't undercutting British workers (you know, all of those British people lining up to pick fruit). Let them source their own accommodation. Don't provide benefits, but don't house them at the British taxpaers' expense. Instant saving of about £5 billion, and beneficial to industries with shortages. Let them work in higher skilled jobs, if they have the qualifications.

It'll solve the cost problem but it won't appease those who just don't want any brown skinned people around.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

The smugglers are a response to demand. They do not create the problem.

Wrong. The smugglers create the (unsafe) opportunity for asylum seekers to 'flee' France, a safe country.

They come by boat because there are no other routes for them, and 65% of them are granted asylum, which suggests that they ARE genuine asylum seekers.

The 35% coming by boat aren't!

How else do you suggest someone seeking asylum with good credentials to arrive? Swim?

Plane, Train, Car?

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Tighten the criteria, so people with weak and dubious claims, or are economic migrants don't make it into the process in the first place

Who will then attempt to cross on a boat..........

Let them source their own accommodation.

Many homeless people cannot find or afford accommodation let alone a migrant who's just landed.

Don't provide benefits, but don't house them at the British taxpaers' expense.

?

It'll solve the cost problem but it won't appease those who just don't want any brown skinned people around.

The typical response to a weak argument. Get the Dulux colour card out

 

[Scalloway]

I find it ironic that the right wing applauded when in 1981, the late Lord Tebbit urged job seekers to get on their bike and find work but now they want to turn back people who have done the same thing.

 

[Newchodge]

My understanding is that they are not, that most wouldn't meet the criteria to stay.

Your understanding is wrong. Before the Tories stopp4ed processing their claims about 80% were successful.

We have to shut the door.

Why?

 

[Newchodge]

We have to remove the incentives that lead people to come to the UK.

Teach them a different language or send their family members to live in foreign countries?

 

[Newchodge]

As above, an asylum triage centre in France. Tighten the criteria, so people with weak and dubious claims, or are economic migrants don't make it into the process in the first place. But since 65% of asylum seekers do receive it, that suggests that more of them are genuine than are not.

Allow them to take work in sectors that have shortages, like agriculture, while waiting for a decision. Ensure minimum wage legislation is enforced, so they aren't undercutting British workers (you know, all of those British people lining up to pick fruit). Let them source their own accommodation. Don't provide benefits, but don't house them at the British taxpaers' expense. Instant saving of about £5 billion, and beneficial to industries with shortages. Let them work in higher skilled jobs, if they have the qualifications.

It'll solve the cost problem but it won't appease those who just don't want any brown skinned people around.

Agreed, but why in France? Why not as close as possible to the place from which they are coming? We have embassies or whatever in those places.

 

[Newchodge]

Wrong. The smugglers create the (unsafe) opportunity for asylum seekers to 'flee' France, a safe country.

The 35% coming by boat aren't!

Plane, Train, Car?

You cannot drive from France to the UK without crossing a border. Without a valid visa they cannot enter. If they come by plane the airline is required to return them to their place of origin and pay many £thousands in fines.

 

[Newchodge]

Don't provide benefits, but don't house them at the British taxpaers' expense. Instant saving of about £5 billion, and beneficial to industries with shortages.

They get £10 per week and no benefits. They are housed only until their claimj is decided. They are housed because they are not allowe3d to work.

 

[fisicx]

The pipeline begins in their own country. They pay the smugglers in Iran or Afghanistan or wherever. By the time they get to France they have already crossed multiple borders. The boat trip across the channel is just the last step.

Having a processing centre in France is pointless.

 

[japancool]

Who will then attempt to cross on a boat..........

And since they can't then apply for asylum, they get deported.

Many homeless people cannot find or afford accommodation let alone a migrant who's just landed.

Because they aren't working, and the councils don't have social housing. Migrants would rent privately.

The typical response to a weak argument. Get the Dulux colour card out

Typical response from someone who doesn't, and actually can't refute it. I'm so sorry you don't like the truth.

 

[japancool]

Agreed, but why in France? Why not as close as possible to the place from which they are coming? We have embassies or whatever in those places.

Only because (at the moment) many of them are gathered there. It seems a bit dangerous for them to apply for asylum in the country that they might be fleeing from.

 

[japancool]

Wrong. The smugglers create the (unsafe) opportunity for asylum seekers to 'flee' France, a safe country.

Wrong. People will want to cross with or without smugglers.

The 35% coming by boat aren't!

Because they have visas to come for other reasons. You cannot obtain a visa to apply for asylum.

Plane, Train, Car?

Newchodge already answered this.

 

[japancool]

They get £10 per week and no benefits. They are housed only until their claimj is decided. They are housed because they are not allowe3d to work.

No, I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where they're allowed to take up jobs in shortage sectors while waiting for their claim to be assessed. Let them enter the workforce but don't provide access to universal credit.

Currently, they get no benefits, yes. They also aren't allowed to work, so the burden of looking after them falls entirely on the taxpayer.

 

[japancool]

Having a processing centre in France is pointless.

Wherever you put it, provide a means for them to apply for asylum from outside the UK.

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

It seems like your assuming those coming over by boat are genuine asylum seekers Paul?

No, I am assuming that those coming on boats are paying people smuggling gangs to get on the boats. My idea means taking the money direct, managing the flow/logistics and then applying the standard approval process.

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

If you come over by boat, no matter how good your credentials are you cannot stay.

Agreed, however, you assume that they are all caught before landing on the white cliffs.

You also forget that there isn't a way for many/most of these people do not hav ean official channel/process to go through.

 

[Newchodge]

It seems a bit dangerous for them to apply for asylum in the country that they might be fleeing from

It would be. I mean the first country they arrive in after fleeing.

 

[ctrlbrk]

It seems like your assuming those coming over by boat are genuine asylum seekers Paul?
My understanding is that they are not, that most wouldn't meet the criteria to stay.

You cannot make the assumption that all the people coming by boat are not genuine asylum seekers.
Some may be, some may not.

The smugglers are a response to demand. They do not create the problem.

That is true but, like any market, when business is good, they will want to keep it going.

Smugglers that are part of organised crime will create more incentives for people to use their infrastructure (more people smuggled=more revenue).

For example, I wouldn't be surprised if, as part of their smuggling package, they provided training that teach people who are not genuine asylum seekers how to lie, what to say, etc. to maximise their chances of staying in their chosen country.

 

[japancool]

It would be. I mean the first country they arrive in after fleeing.

That's fair enough.

 

[japancool]

That is true but, like any market, when business is good, smugglers that are part of organised crime will create more incentives for people to use their infrastructure (more people smuggled=more revenue).

They undoubtedly do, but getting rid of the gangs on their own won't fix the underlying problem. It's rather like trying to beat drug smuggling and crime by destroying criminal gangs - as long as demand is there, more will pop up.

 

[ctrlbrk]

They undoubtedly do, but getting rid of the gangs on their own won't fix the underlying problem. It's rather like trying to beat drug smuggling and crime by destroying criminal gangs - as long as demand is there, more will pop up.

Absolutely - not wanting to go off topic but the immigration influx we've seen towards Europe in the last 20 years or so was created by poor foreign policies IMO, both in the UK and in the wider EU.

 

[Mister B]

I listened to a very good interview with the French MP for Calais on this, and his opinion made total sense:

1. He claimed that by scrapping all benefits for the "boat" people would automatically eliminate 50% of all migrants trying to reach our shores. I appreciate that they may only receive a nominal amount, (£10 as previously suggested,) but that£10 is not perceived to be nominal by those in receipt of it. Add on the free board and lodgings and it becomes an appealing proposition that smugglers can sell to desperate individuals.
2. Build an asylum claims processing centre 1000km away from Calais-to be joint funded by the EU/FR/UK. Upon arrival at Calais all migrants are immediately removed to said processing centre. Upon processing, if they're coming in they come straight in, if they're denied entry then they're returned to their original point of departure. No if, no buts, no migrants allowed to remain in Calais or the surrounding areas.

His argument is that by making it a less attractive proposition to come here and that any trip to Calais would be pointless, would automatically shut the channel down as a route of entry into the UK.

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

Upon arrival at Calais all migrants are immediately removed to said processing centre

They've made it that far, so I would think avoiding the roundups to get to the boats would be pretty easy!!

His argument is that by making it a less attractive proposition to come here and that any trip to Calais would be pointless

Possibly, but without knowing their motivations (which one would hope they are being asked when they are being interviewed) you can't make such a broad guess!

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Your understanding is wrong. Before the Tories stopp4ed processing their claims about 80% were successful.

Why?

..and the remaining 20%

You cannot drive from France to the UK without crossing a border. Without a valid visa they cannot enter. If they come by plane the airline is required to return them to their place of origin and pay many £thousands in fines.

Would that be because we have Laws?

You cannot make the assumption that all the people coming by boat are not genuine asylum seekers.
Some may be, some may not.

The assumption is made because those coming by boat are doing so illegally.

Within this thread there are lots of assumptions. 'That workers could and would be happy to take unskilled jobs in Agriculture, that they could source their own accommodation' to name just 2.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Why?

I may get slated for the terminology and analogies but if the Harrods Sale is over run, they shut the doors

 

[japancool]

Would that be because we have Laws?

Laws that show you how glib your suggestion that they come by plane, train or car is.
"Oh, just come by plane, train or car if you want to claim asylum."
"We're not allowed to."
"Well, don't come at all then."

Within this thread there are lots of assumptions. 'That workers could and would be happy to take unskilled jobs in Agriculture, that they could source their own accommodation' to name just 2.

No more so than an assumption that they're all here for benefits, or that they don't want to work.

 

[japancool]

Let's just clarify something here. Nobody wants fully open borders. Nobody wants any Tom, Dick or Harry to turn up and be allowed in. Nobody wants purely economic migrants (unless they're rich), or those with false, or very weak claims. Nobody wants people who just say they're being persecuted because they're LGBTQ or Democrat without any proof. Nobody wants criminals.

Well, maybe some do, but they're a tiny minority and should be ignored.

But it's unfair to characterise everyone seeking protection as one of those, and shut out people with genuine claims because some, or maybe even the majority of the claimants are one of those (though statistics suggest they are not). Or that people of a certain religion or skin colour or accident of birth fall into those categories. And it's not right to shut out those with genuine claims because some do not. Or to suggest that those who are here completely legally and are just getting on with their lives, just like everyone else, needs to go as well.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

But it's unfair to characterise everyone seeking protection as one of those, and shut out people with genuine claims because some, or maybe even the majority of the claimants are one of those (though statistics suggest they are not).

What are they seeking protection from when they arrive in France?

 

[japancool]

What are they seeking protection from when they arrive in France?

I don't know, I haven't interviewed them all.

 

[japancool]

If you're asking what they're looking to be protected from IN France, then probably nothing. But they're not required to seek asylum in France. Some of them do. Twice as many people apply for asylum in Germany than here.

So what you don't want is any refugees at all. OK. And if there weren't any, do you have a problem with legal migration?

 

[fisicx]

Migrants of any sort can walk across the border into Germany and many other European counties. It’s only news here because many come by boat. If there were a land bridge between the UK and mainland Europe this thread wouldn’t even exist. Many of those arriving in the UK would just disappear and end up living in a doss house working for cash.

Just near us is a house with curtains always closed. Before sun up a stream of men leave to go work wherever. Nobody knows they exist. I know because in the council thinks the house is unoccupied.

 

[Newchodge]

What are they seeking protection from when they arrive in France?

One of the laws we have states that someone seeking asylum can choose the country in which they seek it. They do NOT have to stop in the fIrst safe country. So your question is 100% irrelevant.

 

[Newchodge]

I may get slated for the terminology and analogies but if the Harrods Sale is over run, they shut the doors

But we are not over-run. What makes you think we are?

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

Everyone, this topic was created to come up with some ideas on how we can 'profit' (or reduce the cost) of the immigration issues created, in part, by Brexit and poorly handled by Governments. It is not meant to a general immigration post.

Everyone has been pretty good, so far, but I just wanted to guide us all back to the core discussion.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

If you're asking what they're looking to be protected from IN France, then probably nothing. But they're not required to seek asylum in France. Some of them do. Twice as many people apply for asylum in Germany than here.

So what you don't want is any refugees at all. OK. And if there weren't any, do you have a problem with legal migration?

So they've got to France and can no longer claim to be fleeing a war zone, cannot claim they need protection. Have no humanitarian need to come to the UK?

I have no problem with legal migration that is regulated and managed. In just 2 days over a late September weekend, twice as many migrants (1353) arrived on English shores as attend our local secondary school.
Drive past your local school at chucking out time, visualise what 1353 people look like and ask yourself whether the door should be shut until a valid and workable system - that can be safely policed - takes precedent over an open door policy? For the migrants benefit as well as ours. Note my first comment above when doing so.