UK government urged to offer ‘safe and legal’ route for asylum seekers as poll shows support
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/14/uk-government-urged-to-offer-safe-and-legal-route-for-asylum-seekers-as-poll-shows-support
Posted by SatoshiSounds
43 Comments
Ok let’s say you give 40k the access to apply from abroad and travel safely. Are we then going to straight deport everyone who carries on arriving on boats? Or are we still going to have to process them on top of the 40k?
Let’s turn the whole island into the biggest Immigrant Amusement Park in the world!
And labours commitment to making the UK as unsafe as possible for LGBT people hasn’t changed I see
I have no issues in a safe and legal route. As long as it is done fairly and in a measured way, and those that are deemed from countries that are safe are returned promptly, so we can help those truly in need
No, this will not help. Our country is in terrible economic condition. We need to build substantially more infrastructure before we can ever cater to the misinformed victims of criminal gangs, crossing the Channel in boats that aren’t suitable in search of opportunities that don’t exist.
We can spend a relatively small amount informing the populations of these countries that they will not be getting in if they try this and are more likely to drown if they attempt it. It is not as if legitimate ferry services do not exist.
There’s already a safe and legal route – it’s called France.
Ah, yes. Please feel free to implement a 50+ mile round-trip ferry service at the tax payer’s expense. It’s probably the only form of nationalised transportation we’ll see in this country – when its own citizens won’t even be able to use it.
Edit: Downvote me all you want. Continue enjoying your 5 minute train journeys at the low price of £100.
We should be taking refugee women and children *directly* (via military aircraft) from refugee camps in or near actual warzones. So right now that would be Sudan, Palestinians, Northern Nigeria, and so on
It is total madness to allow relatively wealthy economic migrants to self-select as asylum seekers after they’ve entered illegally and paid lots of money to smugglers. This way, we’re not even helping the poorest in the world because they don’t have the money for the smugglers, let alone women and children refugees with absolutely nothing.
Europe is being so generous but its generosity is not being allocated to those most in need
So a survey shows people support this… fair enough. Its not like there has been any other polls done recently where the british public showed any type of opinion against all this migration.
/s obv
“Safe routes” and “faster processing”.
Two terms constantly floated as solutions that will do nothing except let more people in.
We have safe routes, we could take whatever number we deem acceptable from UN camps.
We would still get people crossing the channel because those that cross the channel are in the vast majority not people who would be accepted by UN camps.
We don’t need more safe routes, we just need to reject anyone from the channel so we can actually help the most in need & make our asylum system actually work.
The only answer that fixes our situation is the rejection of boat crossings, without that the system will not work.
Am I allowed to illegally migrate to countries like Dubai and Saudi Arabia, or will they torture me or imprison me, kick me out etc. If I’m. If not allowed then why does UK not do what Saudi and Dubai do with migrants?
The UK should be accepting zero asylum cases.
We should be supporting the asylum camps in near by safe countries. Every £1 we spend hosting someone in the UK could help far more hosting them elsewhere.
Advocating for asylum claimants to enter the UK is advocating for helping less asylum claimants overall.
We should give free assistance to any migrants in France on how to become French citizens. The channel crossing is dangerous.
Becoming French isn’t that bad.
Still talking but have nothing as a plan. Just talk.
Where are these 40k houses that they’re going to live in? We shouldn’t bring a single one over unless accommodation is waiting for them. That doesn’t include the unsustainable idea of housing them in hotels.
Oh a left wing think tank finds people who support more asylum seekers, there’s a surprise
Every illegal should be shipped back to where they came, if you want to migrate then do it legally.
Sure, we want more thuggish men from misogynist societies. Great idea.
Fantastic solution that won’t fix anything. What about the people that get rejected? You think they will just shake their head and go home? Nah, they will board the first boat over to UK
Ah, so one opinion poll shows support for more ridiculous immigration. Let’s just ignore how Reform got 14% of the votes, it’s probably nothing.
Nope. Our population density is insanely high already, almost all of our land is used (either built on or cultivated for things we need, like food or energy) and we have systemic problems with integration.
There’s only overwhelming support because you asked the demographic who show support, go and ask people living in Dover or towns that have had their population triple as a result of immigrants being housed there and you’ll get a completely different answer.
> Half of the British public would support the creation of visas allowing asylum seekers to travel safely to the UK, rather than in small boats, new polling suggests.
Well, yes, of they course they would. But how many would support the creation of visa and the continuation of small boats? Because that’s what we’re going to get.
This isn’t a solution to the small boats and anyone selling it as that is lying and gaslighting us.
IMO if you want to crack down on fraudulent asylum seekers then you should make them ineligible for family reunification visas, that would make it not economically viable for a family to sponsor one member to go abroad.
Stop giving benefits unless they have contributed for more than five years by way of work (tax(zero or over) and NI) and are available for work. Introduce strict and independent, as the evidence can be purchased, background checks. This will stop many. Remember one man in is just the seed; it will only sprout.
There are already safe and legal routes for asylum seekers to come to the United Kingdom. That’s how the Ukrainians, Hong Kongers, and Afghan interpreters and their families got here.
If this was opened up generally as the open borders people want, where people could just rock up to the British embassy in Islamabad or New Delhi or Amman or Accra to seek asylum, the 40,000 claims a year would be absolutely dwarfed. You’d be talking at least ten million claims every single year.
Who did you poll? Only people that give you the correct answer?
We should setup turret stations outside of the sage routes for a week. See how many keep making the trip
Who voted in the poll? The be kind lot? This country can’t even look after its own people, let alone other’s.
44k afghans in Pakistan want relocation in western countries
https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/44000-afghans-in-pakistan-waiting-for-relocation-to-western-nations-pakistan-government/article68393131.ece
But the countries that said they would take them are delaying visas. 1k of the 44k destined for uk.
It also says Pakistan has sent half a million back to Afghanistan
I don’t see that safe routes will stop the boats the numbers wanting to come far exceed the numbers western countries are willing to take.
We just need to be much tougher and withdraw from any laws / conventions that stop us dealing with the problem.
Come without paperwork illegally? Instant deportation to another country.
Any country that won’t accept deportations of migrants who committed a crime or had their application refused should have any foreign aid immediately cut and legal visas withdrawn.
This situation is only going to get worse and appeasement won’t work. We need tough action.
UN laws on refugees are way outdated now . Before refugees would come to a country under the expectation they would return once the conflict/ disaster was over and would mostly go to the closest countries . Now any person from a country that doesn’t have a European level of human rights can claim asylum and live permanently in their host country.
There should be no country should be made to take asylum seekers , especially a limited number. In my view we should leave this law
I have a friend who works in one of the detention centres that house the migrants from the small boats and he says they are nearly all men and mostly criminal elements from Eastern European countries and not particularly nice fellas.
There’s zero chance these lads would apply anywhere for asylum and they’ll keep heading over via any route possible.
Great. More and more people who hate us and don’t follow our values, entering the country. No doubt will know barely any English and we’ll be expected to house/accommodate them and when I say We, I mean the British tax payer
“Sunder Katwala, the director of British Future” sure they did Sundar
Most polls show that the vast majority of Brits wish to dramatically reduce migration particularly the non EU migration we’ve had recently.
15-20 years Brits have been asking for this and have polled that way yet no one cared then so why care now?
All this because we couldnt send the damn boats back in 2013. Asylum wasnt meant to take in the entirety of Africa and the Middle East but thats what we will become because nobody has the balls to repeal the right of asylum. The Russians have been laughing at us and facilitating this, because we are so stupid and stubborn.
All this because we couldnt send the damn boats back in 2013. Asylum wasnt meant to take in the entirety of Africa and the Middle East but thats what we will become because nobody has the balls to repeal the right of asylum. The Russians have been laughing at us and facilitating this, because we are so stupid and stubborn.
The headline is factually incorrect. Nobody crossing the channel in a boat is an Asylum Seeker
Get ready for an avalance then, are rejected asylum seekers going to be deported finally en masse? No? Then get ready for new sky high “migration” numbers.
UK government is truly stupid. The rules says you have to be physically in UK to apply for refugee status in UK. Change the rules. Set up an office in Calais where people can apply for refugee status and say that if you cross the channel and get into UK illegally your application is automatically rejected. Legit refugees won’t have to do dangerous crossing with their kids in rubber boats and only bad apples that would definitely get rejected will be the ones trying to cross the channel.
In that way you’re gonna save who knows how many lives. You won’t have to pay France millions to try and deflate rubber boats before they hit water. Smugglers will lose plenty of clients.
40k is alright if we keep cultural compatibility in mind when approving claims, it includes people who come here via the family reunion scheme and we can instantly deport/imprisoned anyone who comes here illegally.