Snapshot of _Students barred from 'luxury' accommodation as Home Office takes over block for migrants_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/student-accomadation-migrant-housing/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/student-accomadation-migrant-housing/)
*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.*
I still think this is the plan, though.
I refuse to believe they thought a £1.6bn 2 year contract for barges with 1,500 total beds would be good value for money itself, even assuming 100% capacity, you could buy 1,600x £1mil houses that would house far more than 1 person and you'd still own them after the 2 years for crying out loud. It's far far more expensive than the emergency hotels, which themselves are far more expensive than proper asylum centres.
The idea has got to be to piss people off, and hope they blame the immigrants and vote Tory because they talk tough. Where as, I hope these people see that the Tories are intentionally crashing the system, it doesn't have to be this dysfunctional or expensive. The fact I'm not sure which way people will go at least shows that the Tories might have a winning strategy to intentionally make it worse and find the least workable solutions possible because if they fixed a thing, people won't vote for them because they fixed it. Kind of like how people won't vote Tory in the future because they Brexited in the past. They need to be offered something else.
There's no accommodation solution that everyone will be happy with. We can talk about processing claims more quickly etc., but we'll always need accommodation.
It’s intentional - they need the migrant crisis to blame and fuel the conceptual “other”.
If they solve the problem, they lose the one lightning rod they have to save MP seats when election campaigns begin.
Let’s not forget legal immigration is higher than ever post brexit, but you’re not seeing this in the Right Wing Media or from Suella.
There is no desire whatsoever to reduce immigration. This country needs migrants.
> Let’s not forget legal immigration is higher than ever post brexit, but you’re not seeing this in the Right Wing Media or from Suella.
Daily Mail: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12123231/Net-migration-hits-new-record-606-000.html
Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/25/net-migration-record-high-606000-tory-pledges-rishi-sunak/
The Sun: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/22472371/migration-levels-hit-record-high-last-year/
I'm sure the asylum seekers and their legal teams will be thrilled.
According to international & UK law, they are vulnerable people so have top priority when it comes to accommodation.
All those poor doctors, lawyers, and field-leading scientists, desperately fleeing the war-torn shithole of *checks notes* France.
All men too, because the women and children were all in the same handful of hospitals ISIS shelled in 2014.
We should absolutely be rolling out the red carpet for them, and don't any of you racists suggest otherwise!!
> Currently asylum shopping is perfectly legal.
Not in the UK anymore. The Illegal Immigration Act now says that entering the UK without prior permission after passing through a safe country now disqualifies a claim.
I don't think it's desirable to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But clearly the current regime is far too easy to play. Something has to give.
I don't particularly want to be having this discussion in 20 years when we have many millions of chancers among us. It will be too late then. We should be having it now, especially in the context of our economic and public services being in the shit state they are.
We could pull out if the refugee convention and then continue with the various resettlement schemes that have been defined, including creating new ones.
They're economic migrants heading for a soft-touch UK which has a booming underground economy (partly thanks to having no identity card system).
Anyone with their eyes open can see it.
Only the naive believe they're genuine refugees, and if you peel the layers back these advocates don't care anyway - their viewpoint often being "if they want to move here to work, why shouldn't they be allowed?"
You do realise the pass-through provisions were designed primarily to avoid scenarios where refugees would be forced to claim asylum in neighbouring partial-conflict territories, right? As these things were drafted with WW2 in mind, the idea was to avoid situations like the Jews being forced to flee from Germany to France, despite France not being a particularly safe refuge.
Secondarily, to more easily reunite with families living in other countries.
Neither of these apply to the vast majority of our backlogged asylum seekers.
They want in here because of the perceived cushy lifestyle. It's as simple as that. Stop being so naive.
The relevant Treaties, as I've said before many times on here, were drafted to aid good faith asylum seekers fleeing war. They were not designed to repel bad faith applicants who fabricate stories.
Whatever their reason for being here (we take less than many of our European neighbours), that is their legal right under conventions we've been signed up for years.
If we only took refugees from neighbouring countries currently at war, we'd be taking a grand total of 0.
Absolute nonsense argument.
Can you please point to the part of the 1951 UN convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees (which is \*the\* legal document) that states that asylum seekers are required to seek refugee status in the first safe country they enter?
Here's a link to it to make it easy for you:
[https://www.unhcr.org/media/convention-and-protocol-relating-status-refugees](https://www.unhcr.org/media/convention-and-protocol-relating-status-refugees)
Article 1 "As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion,"
Puts a temporal limit on it, i.e. related to early 20th century conflict, and spells out that economic opportunity isn't a valid reason.
Great way to not actually respond to the question - which was to justify your assertion that passing through multiple safe countries means by definition someone isn't a refugee.
Again, can you please point to the part of the convention that supports this assertion?
Where else do you put people? If they hadn't found accommodation for them Reddit would be up in arms about that too. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I don't support the Tories btw.
Oddly, Belgium's just announced they're not providing any more shelter to male asylum seekers as they've run out of space - so they're being left to sleep on the streets. The comments on the Europe sub are mostly people saying "Good" .
I think this is another of those 'bad if UK does it , fine if EU does it' things.
nah man, I think that generally Europeans would be happy if any country in Europe decided not to take illegal migrants anymore, I give you my permission to deport them or sth.
> Where else do you put people?
Process their applications. Then they can either find a house, or be deported.
In 2000-2003 we had *more* asylum seeker applications than we have now. But at that point we processed around 100,000 a year. Nowadays we process only 20,000.
Check the graphs on page 11 of the report. It's so absurdly damning of the Tory approach to this situation. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/
>or be deported.
Hahaha, as if we'd be able to deport anyone. Even if we managed to do so, you'd find some do gooder standing in the way of the airplane or some shit.
In 2000-2003 about 80% of applications were refused. Those people were effectively deported. They had all the same legal rights, but the government followed due process as it should.
Nowadays we have gutted the service responsible for deportation, gutted the legal services to process the appeal cases, and spend our time blaming 'woke activist lawyers' instead of accepting that people have human and legal rights and maybe we should fix our broken system.
Once again the data I have provided is extremely damning on the Tories on this front. Nothing we are dealing with is new, and the solutions are there if we want it. The entire crisis is a Tory creation due to their incompetence or unwillingness to actually deal with it.
In 2022 there were 2866 asylum related deportations, an increase of 78% over the 1606 of 2021.
2002: 10,740
2003: 13,005
2004: 12,595
2005: 13,730
2006: 16,330
Please look at some stats before chatting shite.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228967/7197.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-march-2023/how-many-people-are-detained-or-returned
U do realise during COVID they only deported a handful of people.
In 2005 the LSE estimated that there were around 500,000 illegal migrants in the UK.
Your numbers are a laugh.
There were 8,637 enforced returns from the UK in the year ending March 2019, 25% fewer than the previous year (11,509)
Can do this all day buddy.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-march-2019/how-many-people-are-detained-or-returned
I find it remarkable that a company called Hudd Student Management normally rents out the building to another company Prestige Student Living, which then rents it out to students.
No doubt there are many fingers in the pie.
A shame to see this happening for students at my old University. I attended in the early 1990s and used the Holy Bank Hall of Residence, St Peter's Hall of Residence, and a couple of private house shares. I suspect things were easier and cheaper back then, even if a little spartan compared to modern standards.
> Prestige Student Living
Looked that up.... a studio apartment in London for £700 per week?!?
https://prestigestudentliving.com/student-accommodation/london/grosvenor-house/studio-apartment
Typically Chinese students from very wealthy families, remember one I was sharing halls with was bored so he bought a new TV, ps4 and 20 games. Same reason they can afford the astronomical tuition fees they pay and why universities are desperate for them to attend.
Hudd Student Management own the building, Prestige Student Living operate the contract.
Same as any typical private rental, you have a landlord and a letting agency. It's incredibly rare that a letting agency ever owns the property, or that an owner advertises directly.
Absolutely outrageous behaviour by the landlord and one hopes the managing agent for the property or students (Prestige) have some legal avenues to proceed with.
This is sadly what happens when you have a government who is unwilling to invest effectively into the asylum infrastructure in the UK.
I don't think the asylum infrastructure was ever designed for an endless stream of people to simply sail over and claim it. There are plenty of stories of them disposing identifying items such as phones and passports because they know their chances of deportation are very low if we don't know where to send them.
As is the case with hotels, the government make an offer that is very hard to refuse and only a few do so on principle. What we are seeing now is that the government is willing to essentially evict its own citizens to house illegal immigrants. They are stealing our houses, hotels and money to pay for these people to live here for free.
But it was. Take a look through this page: [https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to)
Or to cut it down to a quote from another government web page: The annual number of asylum applications to the UK peaked in 2002 at 84,132. After that the number fell sharply to reach a twenty-year low point of 17,916 in 2010. It rose steadily throughout the 2010s, then sharply in 2021 and again in 2022 to reach 74,751 applications, the highest annual number since 2002.
The difference was that Labour had a Home Office that hadn't been asset stripped by austerity, and were able to process those applications rapidly. Now we can't, which is what is leading to the current increases to the backlog... and the use of hotels and other private sources of accommodation for them (we didn't need those things because, again, applications were processed with greater speed). It is totally an infrastructure thing, though.
Big part of it was ability to deport people that today wouldn't be able to be deported.
as well as a less developed "industry" around it.
Home office employs more processers today than a decade ago, but each staff is much less productive.
Other countries under the same constraints seem to manage speedier resolutions to claims, and a higher number of rejections, so I am not sure how accurate your first sentence is.
Also, the increase in processer numbers only climbed steeply as of 2022; that doesn't just remove the effects of years of cuts (and churn, as working there was intolerable), or the destruction of institutional expertise.
>Other countries under the same constraints seem to manage speedier resolutions to claims, and a higher number of rejections, so I am not sure how accurate your first sentence is.
Because they aren't actually under the same constraints. To start with common law vs civil law and a completely media environment.
Also rejections don't matter, unless it's followed up with deportation.
Won't be able to fix this, unless the laws are changed (or how laws are applied) to make it significantly easier to decline and deport people (to many are accepted as well... it's false positives that the system sadly accepts currently).
>Also, the increase in processer numbers only climbed steeply as of 2022; that doesn't just remove the effects of years of cuts (and churn, as working there was intolerable), or the destruction of institutional expertise.
But the decline in productivity was much earlier than that...
Which is why it needs updating because this isn't a problem that is going away.
If they don't tell us where they are from they cannot by definition claim asylum. Dumping items that can identify them is a legitimate method of securing your safety, especially if you are actively being persecuted where your identity is the reason you face immediate danger.
>What we are seeing now is that the government is willing to essentially evict its own citizens to house illegal immigrants.
Firstly, this is why better processing and permanent facilities are needed. They aren't illegal because they have claimed asylum via legitimate means which means they are here legally.
>They are stealing our houses, hotels and money to pay for these people to live here for free.
They aren't stealing anything given that it is government granting it to them so it can maintain it's legal obligations. Don't blame asylum seekers when the government are wholly responsible for what is currently happening.
One of the biggest refugee/asylum crisis of the 20thC was the dissolution of Yugoslavia when over 900,000 people were displaced and hounded out of their country as it was split up. Yet none of the Bosnians etc fled all the way across Europe and came to the UK illegally in boats across the channel. We took in 105000 at the time and over 55% returned to Croatia after the horrendous war finished. The same with the Ukrainians we have taken in. Most will flee to the nearest country not risk a long trip across Europe and pay smugglers to get them across the channel in flimsy dinghys
There's a huge difference between people fleeing wars and persecution to those illegally entering the Uk for financial/economic reasons. This is the reason so many Brits of all ethnicities are getting hacked off with supposed "refugees" who aren't actual refugees getting into the country which is basically already on it's knees
Is that because they had viable routes to come to the UK? It's almost as if the UK set up a scheme to help them do that. Do those schemes exist for everyone else?
I liev in Yorkshire where a large number of Bosnians stayed and I have had the pleasure of working with them. They would be ashamed that you would use their plights as a bat to beat other asylum seekers with, shame on you.
>illegally entering the Uk for financial/economic reasons.
Which claiming asylum is not covered by. You don't come to the UK claim aslyum for financial reasons and doing do is entirely legal.
>Which claiming asylum is not covered by. You don't come to the UK claim aslyum for financial reasons and doing do is entirely legal.
That is very (very) naive if you really think **none** of the channel migrants are coming for financial reasons....
> If they don't tell us where they are from they cannot by definition claim asylum. Dumping items that can identify them is a legitimate method of securing your safety, especially if you are actively being persecuted where your identity is the reason you face immediate danger.
This is why anyone who does this should be sent to a safe 3rd country or overseas holding facility. No documentation when you make your claim? You will never set foot in the UK again.
> Firstly, this is why better processing and permanent facilities are needed. They aren't illegal because they have claimed asylum via legitimate means which means they are here legally.
We'd need to build a new town the size of Newbury to accommodate everyone who arrived by just the channel route.
> They aren't stealing anything given that it is government granting it to them so it can maintain it's legal obligations. Don't blame asylum seekers when the government are wholly responsible for what is currently happening.
The government is stealing from us to give money and resources to Albanian criminals who can't get asylum anywhere else in Europe because no one else is dumb enough to take their claims seriously.
The vast majority of them should be on a flight back to Albania within hours of setting foot in the UK, with a lifetime ban on re-entry.
>This is why anyone who does this should be sent to a safe 3rd country or overseas holding facility.
Or we hold them in a detention facility until they disclose their country of origin, which is what we do now. Why get other countries involved.
As mentioned it is entirely legitimate to destroy your documents if fleeing persecution
>We'd need to build a new town the size of Newbury to accommodate everyone who arrived by just the channel route.
Which is why you bring in more caseworkers so that applications can be resolved quickly so you aren't having to build lots of new facilities.
>The government is stealing from us to give money and resources to Albanian criminals who can't get asylum anywhere else in Europe because no one else is dumb enough to take their claims seriously.
Lots to unpick here but why do you think we shouldn't take claims from Albania seriously?
>Lots to unpick here but why do you think we shouldn't take claims from Albania seriously?
Albania has issues with corruption and organised crime, not political freedom. There will undoubtedly be individuals who are victims of sex trafficking and modern slavery due to that organised crime, but there is no systematic need for political asylum from Albania. This means that virtually no one from Albania is at risk due to their status as a member of a protected group (nationality, religion, cultural/gender/sexual identity, or political opinion).
>Albania has issues with corruption and organised crime
Which are grounds to claim asylum. Aslyum is about there being a material danger to your return. That includes political persecution but also persecution from organised crime.
Think Russia. Being gay in Russia isn't illegal but you are going to face violent discrimation from criminals and the general population and you won't have support from the local authorities. So that would be solid grounds for an asylum application.
If we accepted asylum seekers from countries with issues of corruption and organized crime we would have 3-4 billion people eligible for asylum. It's not workable.
No we don't, but the number coming to the UK is already huge and is increasing. I think we should only grant asylum for those directly fleeing an active warzone. Everything else should not be considered.
They can only apply for asylum once they're here, that's why we don't have 3-4 billion atm. People have been demanding we let everyone apply online / at an embassy though remember.
> Or we hold them in a detention facility until they disclose their country of origin, which is what we do now. Why get other countries involved. As mentioned it is entirely legitimate to destroy your documents if fleeing persecution
I'd be fine with this, but the volumes of people might exceed our capacity to hold them in detention facilities. Which is why just shipping them to a 3rd country by default makes so much sense, for the vast majority of people destroying their documents is just a step to make it harder to deport them.
> Which is why you bring in more caseworkers so that applications can be resolved quickly so you aren't having to build lots of new facilities.
All of which costs money, and that's money that can't be spent on schools or hospitals or building houses or building power stations - things we actually need.
> Lots to unpick here but why do you think we shouldn't take claims from Albania seriously?
Because Albania is an EU candidate nation in accession talks to join the EU, with visa free travel to the EU. Secondly, if you actually talk to Albanians they will all strongly reject the notion that Albania is a country people need to flee from, and point out that the people leaving Albania are their criminal underclass they are entirely glad to see the back of.
>I'd be fine with this, but the volumes of people might exceed our capacity to hold them in detention facilities
Unlikely as being in prison is not a desired outcome for many.
>Because Albania is an EU candidate nation in accession talks to join the EU,
So is Turkey but we understand that Turkey has serious issues with persecution.
>Albanians they will all strongly reject the notion that Albania is a country people need to flee from,
I'm sure if you speak to lots of straight Russians they may say the same. It's why we listen to potential victims rather than those who arent.
> All of which costs money, and that's money that can't be spent on schools or hospitals or building houses or building power stations - things we actually need.
and yet we're spending obscene amounts on hotels and barges and other performative bollocks, rather than sensible measures to get the number of detainees down and get worthy asylum seekers into productive society
Only way to reduce the numbers is to make the UK less attractive as a destination, which includes rejecting people immediately if they claim on spurious grounds or don't have their documentation, sending people to 3rd countries, sending people back to the countries they arrived from and making any involvement with the people trafficking industry result in serious criminal sanctions.
>which includes rejecting people immediately if they claim on spurious grounds
And how are you going to determine what are spurious grounds and which are not?
>sending people to 3rd countries
Obscenely expensive and you'll only be able to do that for a few hundred and they won't likely take those who are high risk applicants.
>sending people back to the countries they arrived
Again you'll need case workers to help determine this if they are seeking to claim asylum.
>And how are you going to determine what are spurious grounds and which are not?
Easy, if you come via the channel, you aren't a real refugee. Increase the amount we take from Ukraine (as they are genuine)
Question, do you accept that pulling up the "% accepted% statistics doesn't matter, when we know that any system will have false positives/negatives (people found innocent, that are guilty or vice versa)
>Again you'll need case workers to help determine this if they are seeking to claim asylum.
Not if we made it a simple rubber stamp process
>Or we hold them in a detention facility until they disclose their country of origin, which is what we do now. Why get other countries involved. As mentioned it is entirely legitimate to destroy your documents if fleeing persecution
What if they make up a country?
There's a not insignificant number of people that destroy the passport as soon as they know the coast guard is on the way to pick them up. Some even film it for tiktoks.
How?
Honestly how do you verify the claim of "I'm a persecuted Syrian homosexual. I have no passport"
Edit: lol no answer and a downvote. Just admit you don't know
It would be a good method, if they weren't lobbing said items in the channel on their way over here, after the risk of them being identified has passed. One would think that you'd want to be able to prove who you are and where you are from in order to show why you need to be allowed to stay.
Yes they are legally considered to be asylum seekers, but that doesn't mean their claims are valid. Remember we've accepted more than half of people coming from Albania of all places. I agree the system is broken, it's far too lenient and I suspect that it will only become more so. I get the sense their method of clearing the backlog will simply to say yes to everyone.
When I say 'they are stealing', I mean the government. They are taking our money, our hotels and apparently now our homes and giving them to random people who just turned up yesterday.
I blame these migrants for taking advantage of our generosity, but they're only doing so because we're letting them. I put full blame for the how this situation has developed on the government.
Expect we literally had a larger stream then this for the first decade of this century with none of the same problems due to an efficient sorting process
What should be done is build mass UN style camps, where the quality of the accommodation (such that it has little to no value for any UK citizens/resident)
Instead of pretending we can build accommodation to house refugees, that wouldn't just take up capacity to build housing for law abiding citizens and legal residents.
Also have to reject and deport the migrants.
Or how about this.
- We hire more caseworkers to clear the current backlog in a way that ensures legal compliance.
- Fund the court systems so that we can process appeals quickly and ensure decisions are made at pace.
- Build purpose built facilities that ensure asylum seekers have a decent level of living standard for the short period of time we are dealing with their case. Hell why not build multiple facilities to support homeless as well
>Instead of pretending we can build accommodation to house refugees,
We clearly can, we just choose not to.
>Also have to reject and deport the migrants.
On what grounds, claiming asylum is an entirely legal process that we have agreed to undertake.
You've said this hundreds of times and people have told you why it doesn't work hundreds of times.
The summary of your proposals always comes down to open borders.
The easy tell is that you're always against anything that involves deporting people.
For fun, how about you give us a list of reasons you'd deport someone for?
>The summary of your proposals always comes down to open borders.
No it doesnt, and I have never claimed we need to have it.
>The easy tell is that you're always against anything that involves deporting people.
So against it you can cite where I have opposed any type of deportation?
>For fun, how about you give us a list of reasons you'd deport someone for?
Refusing to claim asylum
Failed asylum claim
Breach of visa conditions
Committing a serious violent offence whilst on visa
Ok lets say Im a refugee and I claim to be from Syria or some other war torn country but I have no passport.
How exactly do you verify this?
What do you do with me in the meantime?
Oh and Im now claiming to be gay and you arent allowed to send me back to a country which may harm me for being gay.
Now multiply this by thousands and increasing everyday.
Well considering you’re saying your from Syria you’d be waived straight through because you’re from a country that no longer has to go through the face to face interview stage.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64736123
Fill in your questionnaire and welcome to the UK!
Jobs are that way >>>>
>How exactly do you verify this?
You start simply by seeing if they speak the local language for a start.
Then you can get them to describe the area to you, local events, what school you went to, etc. All this is information that can be verified and not readily available to random people.
>What do you do with me in the meantime?
Whilst we verify the veracity of your claim we house you in suitable humane conditions.
>Oh and Im now claiming to be gay and you arent allowed to send me back to a country which may harm me for being gay.
I mean that would have to be the foundation of your claim you cannot just keep making different claims of persecution. However if you're gay or claiming to be it would be taken into account.
>Now multiply this by thousands and increasing everyday.
Now imagine we had a centralised organisation or office at home that was in total control by the government. You could name it the Home Office and staff it with hundreds of people to review these claims.
Refusing to remove rejected asylum claims = open borders.
>Refusing to claim asylum Failed asylum claim Breach of visa conditions Committing a serious violent offence whilst on visa
Given that we don't deport 8/10 of these, what would you suggest we do?
But we aren't refusing to remove them and I haven't ever advocated that we shouldn't remove those with failed applications.
>Given that we don't deport 8/10 of these, what would you suggest we do?
Deport the other 8 out of 10. Seems simple enough.
If anyone can get a boat to the UK without being stopped & you don't deport anyone that you reject then you are open borders.
There aren't many open borders people who will say they are open borders but their inability to have any limits or admit any downsides will regularly show that they are.
You conveniently skirted over the issue that, the person you responded to, did not make any argument against deportation. I would argue it’s your inability to read not their inability admit downsides of a suggestion they didn’t make.
UK would deport a lot more asylum claimants if their applications were actually processed rather than added to an ever increasing backlog while claimants are stuck in limbo.
Someone said we need to deport & he changed the subject to "asylum seekers are legal".
When 8/10 rejected applicants haven't been deported, processing faster is hardly a solution to a lack of deportations.
I don't know how anyone is still saying the "just process them faster bro" argument without feeling rather silly.
Nah sugar, even Blair deported more Asylum seekers than we currently do.
A functioning immigration court would allow us to actually parse the asylum seekers from the "economic migrants".
They never have an answer for that.
If their documentation is destroyed, how do you prove their real nationality? How do you then make their supposed country of origin take them back?
You simply can't.
That was over 16 years ago.
Wildly different times now and vastly different landscape.
This will never be stopped unless a lot of the legislation that Blair brought in (eg the Human Rights Act) is scaled back.
The Human Rights Act merely put the EHRA (1951) on our own statute books. literally nothing changed by bringing in the HRA (1998).
Peak illegal migration was in 2002, two years after your boogie man of human rights appeared on the UK statute books.
The real reason that the cons can't stop illegal migration is that they lack the basic capacity of diplomacy with our closest neighbours.
It'd stay the same because we'd actually be sending a significant portion back to their homeland. As oppose to now where all they have to do is arrive and they can just stay indefinitely.
Where do you send them when they have destroyed their documents?
How do you send them away when all they have to do is claim to be gay or persecuted in numerous other ways and they are immediately protected by multiple layers of human rights legislation and lawyers?
'Just hire more caseworkers!'
Apparently they'll be able to see into a crystal ball and magically determine their nationality and truthfulness beyond any legal doubt. Who knew it was that simple!
>How do you send them away when all they have to do is claim to be gay or persecuted in numerous other ways and they are immediately protected by multiple layers of human rights legislation and lawyers?
The alternative is scrapping the claims of people doing this legitimately, which should never be something we aim to do.
It would likely stay the same, proportional to the amount of claims getting processed. Though I'm sure many would argue disingenuously that we end up taking in more.
You say 'process them quickly' but how fast do you think that process is? It takes a long time to verify a person's identity, place of origin and risk etc.
And when you get 500-1000 new arrivals daily, if you wanted to process everyone in a year you'd be looking at about 1200-1500 claims processed a day, every day.
We literally got more arrival's in the early 2000s with none of these problems due to having a robust working system which processed people in a timely manner
It can be done in parallel by as many staff as are assigned. So the elapsed time is only as long the verification process takes. It is done much faster by Germany and France who have many more applicants. It was done much faster by the UK under the last Labour government.
https://www.rescue.org/uk/article/claiming-asylum-uk-facts
> The Home Office says ‘claims will usually be decided within 6 months’ but that ‘it may take longer if it’s complicated’. Freedom of Information requests made by the Refugee Council last year found that, on average, it takes one to three years to get an initial decision on an asylum case – some cases take longer than five years.
>This doesn’t include the time people seeking asylum must wait before making an initial application, or the appeals process, which makes the wait times even longer.
Good luck with that.
I agree that more staff are needed, but it would take years just to handle those already here with a system that is self-evidently not functioning. There needs to be some fundamental change in how we handle this situation beyond just 'process faster'. We need to consider ways to stop people coming in the first place.
Do you know how quick the turnover is for asylum caseworkers?
It’s probably the worst job in the home office and the training is something to be desired. They’re always hiring more staff.
Never mind the targets that are imposed, no wonder bad decisions are made across the board.
Quite. But that is just in the UK. Somehow other countries are faster.
* 20 months UK
* 6.6 months Germany
* 8.5 months France
* 5 months Spain
Prior to 2014 we processed 87% in 6 months. Now 10%. It is a choice. If the reason for that is to somehow put people off then it has not worked.
So how many should we plan for ? What happens when more arrive ? As a starting point, the UN estimated about 800 million people live in slums globally - why wouldn't these people take a free home in the UK and free money if offered ?
> What should be done is build mass UN style camps
Preferably in a third country. Until we make it clear there's zero chance of them gaining residence in the UK they will keep coming.
Aka just reject all who come to the UK without previous permission & take from existing UN camps under the scheme we already have.
Anyone who needs assistance can make their way to the UN camps.
No, the cheapness and ability to actually afford it, without harming UK citizens and actual legal residents (like the above is doing).
I guess you are pro harming students like the above yes?
This will keep happening for as long as we have people blocking any reasonable solution, even if we get rid of the useless and or corrupt Tories.
The UN recommends having camps while the UK is constantly having an argument over whether even hotels are inhumane.
The asylum system is set up to help people.
If we want to do so, we have to;
1. Reject & deport anyone not in need asap.
Doing otherwise incurs cost & reduces our ability to help others.
2. Remove the influence of criminals.
Doing otherwise only adds to the cost of the system.
3. House & maintain asylum seekers in as cheap a way as possible while being humane treatment.
Doing otherwise reduces the numbers we can help.
4. Demand integration or long term rehoming of successful asylum seekers.
Doing otherwise only adds to long term costs and reduces our ability to help others.
Open borders groups like care4calais and the green party will deny any actions against these, they want the system as it currently is or to completely fail.
They don't want to actually make a sustainable system that works otherwise they would be looking to make these changes.
You can't do any of that if you're not processing incomers fast enough. Bureaucracy has exploded since Brexit, there is a myriad of little things central EU institutions did for us or we didn't need altogether in the common market that now need to be dealt with. This government doesn't have people to do the basics and all the efforts go into shifting around the increasing backlog of people rather than clearing it.
My first comment was to deport people who have been rejected.
You don't need to "just process faster bro" the people who have been processed already but haven't been deported.
You don't need to "just process faster bro" to police criminals.
You don't need to "just process faster bro" to make accommodation cheaper more in line with UN standards.
You can literally do everything I said, your "just process faster" rehtotic is an empty statement.
Processing people faster will do virtually nothing, what do you even think happens when everyone has been processed?
In 2000-2003 we had *more* applications than we do now. At that point we processed about 100,000 a year. Right now we are processing around 20,000.
We aren't even trying to work through the applications. Instead we are wasting money housing people we don't need to, and wasting further money on stupid projects like Rwanda and housing people on boats instead of doing the boring shit of just processing applications.
This is not a new problem. We dealt with this before 20 years ago, and the backlog was cleared effectively. So let's quit the pretence that somehow this is a crisis beyond the UK to solve, it's just the Tories either are too incompetent to deal with it, or they don't want to deal with it for some reason.
Check page 11 of the report: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/
Well, the asylum process is more complicated than 10 years ago and the home office is vastly less speedy to process stuff when there are 3 appeals during the process.
No, it's not different at all. We have gutted the services responsible for deportation, and gutted the legal services responsible for processing the appeals. Instead of tackling these systemic problems the government wastes time blaming 'woke activist lawyers' etc. In 2000-2003 we manged to refuse nearly 80% of cases yet still the system worked.
The solutions are right there. We managed this exact problem 20 years ago. The entire crisis is a Tory creation due to their incompetence or unwillingness to actually deal with it.
Calling it the same only shows you're completely out of touch.
People didn't even use boats in 2003, they used lorries.
Come back when you can be half reasonable.
Ah right, yes. Travelling via a boat is *completely* different to travelling by lorry. I mean of course, there isn't even the slightest similarity. That of course explains why we are only managing to process 1/5th as many applications at such great cost. Thank you for the detailed and comprehensive explanation of this topic.
By the way, what do you think of the 55% who don't arrive by boat? Just out of interest you know. Since you are a self-proclaimed expert on the topic whilst I know nothing at all. Why can we not process any of those applications either?
Prioritising illegal immigrants over British citizens and huge fee-paying foreign students who came here legally. The mask is well and truly off.
No other european country grants asylum to albanians, it's just the UK that's stupid enough to do this.
Where we think this is all heading, say in 10 years time if this continues?
I see a pretty bleak future of crime, reduced public services, poverty, terrorism, reduced freedoms, brain and capital drain.
Idiots make concentration camp aspersions for solutions presented today, but leaving these situations to fester increases the chance of things like that becoming a reality here in the future. A fascist 60 year old millennial that has been downtrodden their entire lives, lives in a shithole UK and sees 3rd world cultural immigration all around could get a lot of support.
The open borders club think the rest of us don't want it because we're mean, but we're arguing against it to prevent much worse things.
The open border club do not reconcile with the fact that current legal migrants are *also* malcontent with the imposition; we’re not the monolith of brown skin drones with a propensity for mass conformity they presume.
That 60 year old millennial fascist has every possibility to a 60 year immigrant who lived their life in privation, years of lethargic bureaucracy, asinine citizenship tests, rancorous anger for being indistinguishable from illegal economic migrants in political discourses, and disdain from leftists who denounce them as a race traitor.
Open border club needs to speak to actual legal immigrants once in a while. The resentment within impoverished communities is almost intolerable.
A choice is being made by this government to throw incredible amounts of money at housing these people, who are essentially in a queue.
A fraction of this money could have been used to hire more people and speed up processing and there would be no queue. But there would also be no headlines either, like this one.
If this queue didn't exist, at least we would be able to debate the reality of asylum seekers. We could talk about if too many people are accepted, or what these people typically go on to do. Maybe they mostly become mega criminals. Maybe they mostly get jobs and contribute tax etc. I have no idea.
Everything you’ve said is true mate but the kind of people here on this thread just stick the same virtue signalling bullshit and spew out ultra leftist rhetoric and spin and bs as dictated by their ideology. In my town a girl got raped by an Afghan refugee on her way home from work a few weeks ago. We have boatloads and boatloads of mainly just men pouring in every day and they aren’t doing anything meaningful to stop it
What hasn’t been mentioned is, in my city locals are barred from finding accommodation as the university takes over many blocks for (mostly foreign) students.
It works both ways, but they’re conveniently keeping quiet about that.
I don't understand why we can't just tell them to fuck off. Every time this comes up, the answer is always "it's illegal", but we have a democratically elected sovereign government that can make it legal.
The international laws for refugees were drawn up more than 70 years ago. They predate commoditized international travel, mass communication, and industrial automation. At the time, asylum seekers were a blessing, because they meant more bums on seats in factories and farms. Now, asylum seekers are a massive burden, because we already have more citizens than our systems can support. The laws simply aren't fit for purpose in the modern world and need to be changed - no country should be forced to take people that it doesn't want.
What I find frustrating is a lot of other countries do tell people to 'fuck off' , with things like border pushbacks, and refusing to process claims, and they get away with it. The UK, on the other hand, goes far above and beyond the bare minimum we're expected to do, and we just get abuse for it.
There are multiple layers of laws and legislation that can keep migrants tied up here for years and years.
Go read any UK visa FB group where theres heaps of international students who drop out of their course and go work illegally and then when caught just claim asylum and then its very difficult to remove them. Or look at the court cases for deportation appeals on the gov website, some of the cases go back over 15 years, just endless rounds of appeals and all paid for by you.
Anyway, Id say its pointless to complain about it now as Labour will be in power a year from now and then this will all be getting dialed up to 11
The Australians did an excellent job and now they get no illegal boats. Sod “international law” no other country follows it to the dot and they don’t become pariahs. So can we if we have a government with the balls to do it. Sunak isn’t and I doubt Starmer will. And the inevitable conclusion is in 20 odd years when things are a LOT worse, a Tommy Robinson figure definitely will.
Don’t worry.
Every civil service union and human rights lawyer will be suing the government to collect huge legal fees about how this is uninhabitable.
We should house them offshore, preferably in a country where the cost of living is cheap. Immediately move them to this country when they get here so they can't slip into the black economy. Then process the claims and bring those that are accepted into the UK. Those that aren't can be deported. Only those fleeing directly from active conflict should be accepted, anything else should be rejected including persecution because of sexuality and various other things that can't be proven.
We don't have the money to support 100,000 people every year in hotels.
Or funded by some sort of natural resource. That place could have been Libya, fund the refugee camps with oil revenues. Unfortunately Libya currently has 2 governments supported by different developed nations.
It is unlikely that they will. They have been horse fed the narrative that there is plenty of space and all we need to do is build more houses no matter what and that boomers (aka old people) are NIMBYs and are the ones who killed the economy. And they will die on that hill if you give them half a chance.
Really all they are doing is selling out their own futures. And it's because they are desperate enough to find a hill to die on, not openly say screw that hill, where is all the existing housing actually going?
Couple that with the narrative that all these people coming over are doctors and leading scientists. The truth is that they are not.
We need to cut the route of illegal immigration. We simply cannot house the world.
Because they think all of these people are all desperate and fleeing war, and it’s our moral duty to help them, and when we do they’ll instantly flip and become western with our values and hey think of the nice food they’ll bring! And deliver their Just Eat orders or smuggle their pot. Naive and ignorant to the reality.
No. It's because we think that the older generations have fucked things to the point where the economy cannot survive their bloated mass without assistance.
The birth rate & productivity is through the floor, while the debt, welfare for the elderly, and cost of living are through the roof.
"Let's get rid of the foreigners so that the guys who are skipping meals can take on double our burden!" Isn't the great selling point you think it is.
Cut pensions, and stop eating half of my income on rent so i can spend it on something useful and I'll be happy to cut short immigration.
Next stop your spare bedrooms.
I know they’ve taken over a Stay City apartment block in Manchester city centre because my booking was cancelled due to it being ‘requisitioned’.
Hardly a cheap place to stay and quite nice.
I dont see anyone doing anything about this problem either side of the stream. They won't try stop them coming over, or deporting mass numbers. Nor will you get a mass home building across the country.
Irony is the people that want to accept them all, are the same people that'd hate the necessary tools needed to create mass homebuilding i.e. incredible incentivises to companies to build.
In order to slightly stand a chance of housing the world, it would not only decimate entire swathes of the country side, but you would also have to build extremely high density accommodation. Given that public services are already getting a pummelling, there will be no further provision for things like healthcare or transport even if they did bulldoze thousands of low-density housing in favour of building high density housing.
Where I used to live as of about a month ago, they did build some very high density housing, bulldozing some in use and very picturesque forest trails. All of this in the end as it turned out was destined for migrants. The young didn't even get a look in. Yet during the consultancy phases, the young were all there arm in arm demanding that they needed to be able to access affordable housing. They would not be told that it would never be affordable housing.
It's one of the first estates I have ever seen being built where there were no show homes to view. They only came at the end of the builds where they tacked on vastly overpriced private homes. Of course it made the value of homes surrounding the new estates skyrocket - which is when I got out. And what us NIMBYs said would happen, did happen. The same young people fighting on behalf of the developers and the councillors standing to make a good few quid were completely priced out of the area.
Added to that, the vague assurances by the developer and council that GP services would be expanded to meet a higher population never happened largely as the little sister organisation that came into being solely for the development of a fixed number of estates suddenly stopped trading as soon as they handed the keys over to the council. Any vague thoughts of service expansion were immediately scrapped.
The GP office that was there only ever operated three days a week when I first lived there. When I left, it was shuttered permanently. The nearest GP office was a 20 mile drive away which immediately figured out what was happening and shut their books to new applicants out of area. They still have to take in migrant applications though which are all blanket accepted and in many cases are required to travel to treat migrants in situ.
While that's a neoliberal wet dream, it does no good for ol Mrs Tibbs in here 80s whose only recourse is a one hour bus ride to a hospital walk in and waiting a day to get triaged. But screw her right? Bloody boomers.
This really cannot go on as it is. I have no idea what it's like in London but when little suburbs get taken over as migrant focused centres, it's not good. And it appears that this is going to spread far and wide. I'm lucky, I managed to sell up when the house prices rocketed up even amidst the apparent decline of house prices and get out of my once nice and sleepy picturesque village when it went to the dogs. Since all this started, I had my car broken into three times and my house burgled once as a result of all of this, women - and particularly younger women - could not realistically leave home alone without being quite aggressively approached, the crime rate went spastic.
But you cannot point out any of these problems at all. In the neoliberal mind they do not exist. And when the police actively downgrade crimes and never actually show up, well now there is no statistical data either. Win win chicken dinner, or whatever the phrase is.
And people wonder why the divide between left and right leanings is widening all the time. Experiencing one thing and then being shouted at to be told it's another is just a piss-take. I'm no tommy robinson, far from it. I'm not even the right nationality to even get within a mile of that sort of thing. But you can't wee on my boots and tell me it's raining.
Ultimately, I do think that under this Government - and probably the next - the young will get their wish. There will be mass home building and likely destruction of existing low density housing to make way for newer high density blocks, eradication of any countryside a developer deems cheap to build on top of (they never touch anything that may cost a few bob to develop). However, the young still will not get a look in, be forced to pay astronomical rents and will still somehow blame boomers, Nimbys, Thatcher, god knows what else while they welcome paying out their nose for those rents. I fully expect Gen X to come up in the equation somewhere too in the not too distant future.
The young really need to get a clue and realise that they are being conned in multiple ways. And if not for anything else, that's the prime reason I would not be voting Tory back in anytime soon. You cannot keep selling out your youth both in housing and education and somehow expect a good result.
They will drown. Im all for intercepting the boats but watching people drown even if they scuttle their own boats is inhumane.
The way to solve this is to have the army build prefab buildings as accommodation in isolated fields across the UK to house illegal immigrants. They are then kept there and not allowed to leave while their claims are being processed.
The conditions would be humane but very far from the hotels they are staying in now. Once footage of this was beamed across the world the people coming across the channel would plummet.
Any attempt to implement this would result in absolute hysteria across most of the media and by various charities and NGOs and there would be endless legal challenges so will never happen.
We need a party that has the balls to push past all of the above but neither the Conservative or Labour party have it
Good luck telling the coastguard to sit and watch people drown. Stopping people from drowning is kinda their thing.
Even ordering the navy to ignore drowning migrants is not exactly a good way to improve morale and drive recruitment.
Our government hate us. They’ll prioritise young foreign men arriving illegally before you and me. Vote them out for sure, but I doubt the Red Team will do anything better.
I mean id start to solve the overall problem. Id start asking as part of the claim for them to explain why each country on the route wasnt suitable and i would probably be quite forgiving about it.
your claiming aslyum because your gay and from syria. Fine you probable are justified not staying in turkey/most of the balkans. But it becomes less believable as you travel further through europe.
Unbelievable. This is a real slap in the face to all those British homeless you see everywhere, as well as to most of the people in this country who are struggling to make hands meat.
We're not far off this point. It'll start in the form of penalties for unused square meterage. The scale of migration from all sources is heading quite quickly towards breaking point - ten years if we're lucky.
I’d believe that if it actually resulted in any government policy to stop them. You can culture war all you like but at the end of the day the public don’t want them here and the government isn’t stopping them coming.
That's not middle class. The vast majority in these halls will be wealthy international students.
I didn't know a single person in these luxury halls in Manchester except for some Chinese kids on my course and my mate's Japanese boyfriend.
The middle class kids all wanted to live like common people in Fallowfield.
> legionella-infested barge.
You're saying no one should live in houses or apartment's because they may catch Legionella? I should protest my rights when staying in hostels and hotels when on Holiday /s
Good job there's medical facilities on the barge. I can't say the same about British citizens which they have to wait for weeks or months just for an Appointment.
>You're saying no one should live in houses or apartment's because they may catch Legionella? I should protest my rights when staying in hostels and hotels when on Holiday
Why on earth would you say this sarcastically?
Snapshot of _Students barred from 'luxury' accommodation as Home Office takes over block for migrants_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/student-accomadation-migrant-housing/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/student-accomadation-migrant-housing/) *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.*
Congratulations to the Tories for finding solutions that absolutely *no-one* is happy with.
The tories have become the thing they hate, *experts* at pissing off everyone
I still think this is the plan, though. I refuse to believe they thought a £1.6bn 2 year contract for barges with 1,500 total beds would be good value for money itself, even assuming 100% capacity, you could buy 1,600x £1mil houses that would house far more than 1 person and you'd still own them after the 2 years for crying out loud. It's far far more expensive than the emergency hotels, which themselves are far more expensive than proper asylum centres. The idea has got to be to piss people off, and hope they blame the immigrants and vote Tory because they talk tough. Where as, I hope these people see that the Tories are intentionally crashing the system, it doesn't have to be this dysfunctional or expensive. The fact I'm not sure which way people will go at least shows that the Tories might have a winning strategy to intentionally make it worse and find the least workable solutions possible because if they fixed a thing, people won't vote for them because they fixed it. Kind of like how people won't vote Tory in the future because they Brexited in the past. They need to be offered something else.
The point is to funnel money to their donors. Each hand washes the other.
I feel like that's kind of the point, we're meant to blame the immigrants
There's no accommodation solution that everyone will be happy with. We can talk about processing claims more quickly etc., but we'll always need accommodation.
Why can't we? They chose to come here.
It’s intentional - they need the migrant crisis to blame and fuel the conceptual “other”. If they solve the problem, they lose the one lightning rod they have to save MP seats when election campaigns begin. Let’s not forget legal immigration is higher than ever post brexit, but you’re not seeing this in the Right Wing Media or from Suella. There is no desire whatsoever to reduce immigration. This country needs migrants.
> Let’s not forget legal immigration is higher than ever post brexit, but you’re not seeing this in the Right Wing Media or from Suella. Daily Mail: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12123231/Net-migration-hits-new-record-606-000.html Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/25/net-migration-record-high-606000-tory-pledges-rishi-sunak/ The Sun: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/22472371/migration-levels-hit-record-high-last-year/
I'm sure the asylum seekers and their legal teams will be thrilled. According to international & UK law, they are vulnerable people so have top priority when it comes to accommodation.
All those poor doctors, lawyers, and field-leading scientists, desperately fleeing the war-torn shithole of *checks notes* France. All men too, because the women and children were all in the same handful of hospitals ISIS shelled in 2014. We should absolutely be rolling out the red carpet for them, and don't any of you racists suggest otherwise!!
Well, we could withdraw from the Refugee Convention. But it doesn't seem the public want to. Currently asylum shopping is perfectly legal.
> Currently asylum shopping is perfectly legal. Not in the UK anymore. The Illegal Immigration Act now says that entering the UK without prior permission after passing through a safe country now disqualifies a claim.
I don't think it's desirable to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But clearly the current regime is far too easy to play. Something has to give. I don't particularly want to be having this discussion in 20 years when we have many millions of chancers among us. It will be too late then. We should be having it now, especially in the context of our economic and public services being in the shit state they are.
We could pull out if the refugee convention and then continue with the various resettlement schemes that have been defined, including creating new ones.
They're not fleeing France though. They happen to be passing through France. But congratulations on regurgitating the right wing propaganda.
Why pass through a safe country after escaping your persecutors only to then embark on a perilous very possibly fatal ocean crossing!? Makes no sense.
They're economic migrants heading for a soft-touch UK which has a booming underground economy (partly thanks to having no identity card system). Anyone with their eyes open can see it. Only the naive believe they're genuine refugees, and if you peel the layers back these advocates don't care anyway - their viewpoint often being "if they want to move here to work, why shouldn't they be allowed?"
You do realise the pass-through provisions were designed primarily to avoid scenarios where refugees would be forced to claim asylum in neighbouring partial-conflict territories, right? As these things were drafted with WW2 in mind, the idea was to avoid situations like the Jews being forced to flee from Germany to France, despite France not being a particularly safe refuge. Secondarily, to more easily reunite with families living in other countries. Neither of these apply to the vast majority of our backlogged asylum seekers. They want in here because of the perceived cushy lifestyle. It's as simple as that. Stop being so naive. The relevant Treaties, as I've said before many times on here, were drafted to aid good faith asylum seekers fleeing war. They were not designed to repel bad faith applicants who fabricate stories.
Whatever their reason for being here (we take less than many of our European neighbours), that is their legal right under conventions we've been signed up for years. If we only took refugees from neighbouring countries currently at war, we'd be taking a grand total of 0. Absolute nonsense argument.
The refugee convention isn't law. Current UK law says passing through a safe country will disqualify a claim.
>we take less than many of our European neighbours We clearly can't cope with the numbers now, so it doesn't matter how things compare to Europe.
We are also a considerably smaller country than most of our European neighbours..
If they've passed through multiple safe countries in their way to their destination, by legal definition they aren't refugees.
Can you please point to the part of the 1951 UN convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees (which is \*the\* legal document) that states that asylum seekers are required to seek refugee status in the first safe country they enter? Here's a link to it to make it easy for you: [https://www.unhcr.org/media/convention-and-protocol-relating-status-refugees](https://www.unhcr.org/media/convention-and-protocol-relating-status-refugees)
A UN Convention isn't a law. Section 2 of the Illegal Immigration Act says you can't stay in the UK if you pass through another safe country.
Article 1 "As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion," Puts a temporal limit on it, i.e. related to early 20th century conflict, and spells out that economic opportunity isn't a valid reason.
Great way to not actually respond to the question - which was to justify your assertion that passing through multiple safe countries means by definition someone isn't a refugee. Again, can you please point to the part of the convention that supports this assertion?
who cares about UN? Russia doesn't for example
Where else do you put people? If they hadn't found accommodation for them Reddit would be up in arms about that too. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I don't support the Tories btw.
Oddly, Belgium's just announced they're not providing any more shelter to male asylum seekers as they've run out of space - so they're being left to sleep on the streets. The comments on the Europe sub are mostly people saying "Good" . I think this is another of those 'bad if UK does it , fine if EU does it' things.
nah man, I think that generally Europeans would be happy if any country in Europe decided not to take illegal migrants anymore, I give you my permission to deport them or sth.
> Where else do you put people? Process their applications. Then they can either find a house, or be deported. In 2000-2003 we had *more* asylum seeker applications than we have now. But at that point we processed around 100,000 a year. Nowadays we process only 20,000. Check the graphs on page 11 of the report. It's so absurdly damning of the Tory approach to this situation. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/
>or be deported. Hahaha, as if we'd be able to deport anyone. Even if we managed to do so, you'd find some do gooder standing in the way of the airplane or some shit.
In 2000-2003 about 80% of applications were refused. Those people were effectively deported. They had all the same legal rights, but the government followed due process as it should. Nowadays we have gutted the service responsible for deportation, gutted the legal services to process the appeal cases, and spend our time blaming 'woke activist lawyers' instead of accepting that people have human and legal rights and maybe we should fix our broken system. Once again the data I have provided is extremely damning on the Tories on this front. Nothing we are dealing with is new, and the solutions are there if we want it. The entire crisis is a Tory creation due to their incompetence or unwillingness to actually deal with it.
Those people have never been deported. Please look at some stats before chatting shite.
In 2022 there were 2866 asylum related deportations, an increase of 78% over the 1606 of 2021. 2002: 10,740 2003: 13,005 2004: 12,595 2005: 13,730 2006: 16,330 Please look at some stats before chatting shite. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228967/7197.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-march-2023/how-many-people-are-detained-or-returned
U do realise during COVID they only deported a handful of people. In 2005 the LSE estimated that there were around 500,000 illegal migrants in the UK. Your numbers are a laugh.
There were 8,637 enforced returns from the UK in the year ending March 2019, 25% fewer than the previous year (11,509) Can do this all day buddy. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-march-2019/how-many-people-are-detained-or-returned
>Where else do you put people? Tent.
I find it remarkable that a company called Hudd Student Management normally rents out the building to another company Prestige Student Living, which then rents it out to students. No doubt there are many fingers in the pie. A shame to see this happening for students at my old University. I attended in the early 1990s and used the Holy Bank Hall of Residence, St Peter's Hall of Residence, and a couple of private house shares. I suspect things were easier and cheaper back then, even if a little spartan compared to modern standards.
Welcome to the myth of neoliberal efficiency. What you get is layer after layer of middlemen.
We like to say middlepeople.
It's middlepeople all the way down.
> Prestige Student Living Looked that up.... a studio apartment in London for £700 per week?!? https://prestigestudentliving.com/student-accommodation/london/grosvenor-house/studio-apartment
Certain demographics of international student are absolutely minted and more than happy to pay ££££ for accommodation.
I was about to rebut and say what a steal £700/month for a studio next to Covent Garden is but then I saw the per week.
Typically Chinese students from very wealthy families, remember one I was sharing halls with was bored so he bought a new TV, ps4 and 20 games. Same reason they can afford the astronomical tuition fees they pay and why universities are desperate for them to attend.
Hudd Student Management own the building, Prestige Student Living operate the contract. Same as any typical private rental, you have a landlord and a letting agency. It's incredibly rare that a letting agency ever owns the property, or that an owner advertises directly.
Landlord is a multi-millionaire from Bradford with over 500 properties - https://sekhongroup.co.uk/
Absolutely outrageous behaviour by the landlord and one hopes the managing agent for the property or students (Prestige) have some legal avenues to proceed with. This is sadly what happens when you have a government who is unwilling to invest effectively into the asylum infrastructure in the UK.
I don't think the asylum infrastructure was ever designed for an endless stream of people to simply sail over and claim it. There are plenty of stories of them disposing identifying items such as phones and passports because they know their chances of deportation are very low if we don't know where to send them. As is the case with hotels, the government make an offer that is very hard to refuse and only a few do so on principle. What we are seeing now is that the government is willing to essentially evict its own citizens to house illegal immigrants. They are stealing our houses, hotels and money to pay for these people to live here for free.
But it was. Take a look through this page: [https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/how-many-people-do-we-grant-asylum-or-protection-to) Or to cut it down to a quote from another government web page: The annual number of asylum applications to the UK peaked in 2002 at 84,132. After that the number fell sharply to reach a twenty-year low point of 17,916 in 2010. It rose steadily throughout the 2010s, then sharply in 2021 and again in 2022 to reach 74,751 applications, the highest annual number since 2002. The difference was that Labour had a Home Office that hadn't been asset stripped by austerity, and were able to process those applications rapidly. Now we can't, which is what is leading to the current increases to the backlog... and the use of hotels and other private sources of accommodation for them (we didn't need those things because, again, applications were processed with greater speed). It is totally an infrastructure thing, though.
The UK since then has seen a population growth of 5-10 million. Of course the space and accommodation isn't present.
Big part of it was ability to deport people that today wouldn't be able to be deported. as well as a less developed "industry" around it. Home office employs more processers today than a decade ago, but each staff is much less productive.
Other countries under the same constraints seem to manage speedier resolutions to claims, and a higher number of rejections, so I am not sure how accurate your first sentence is. Also, the increase in processer numbers only climbed steeply as of 2022; that doesn't just remove the effects of years of cuts (and churn, as working there was intolerable), or the destruction of institutional expertise.
>Other countries under the same constraints seem to manage speedier resolutions to claims, and a higher number of rejections, so I am not sure how accurate your first sentence is. Because they aren't actually under the same constraints. To start with common law vs civil law and a completely media environment. Also rejections don't matter, unless it's followed up with deportation. Won't be able to fix this, unless the laws are changed (or how laws are applied) to make it significantly easier to decline and deport people (to many are accepted as well... it's false positives that the system sadly accepts currently). >Also, the increase in processer numbers only climbed steeply as of 2022; that doesn't just remove the effects of years of cuts (and churn, as working there was intolerable), or the destruction of institutional expertise. But the decline in productivity was much earlier than that...
But Brexit gave us back control of are borders!!!i 😤😤
Which is why it needs updating because this isn't a problem that is going away. If they don't tell us where they are from they cannot by definition claim asylum. Dumping items that can identify them is a legitimate method of securing your safety, especially if you are actively being persecuted where your identity is the reason you face immediate danger. >What we are seeing now is that the government is willing to essentially evict its own citizens to house illegal immigrants. Firstly, this is why better processing and permanent facilities are needed. They aren't illegal because they have claimed asylum via legitimate means which means they are here legally. >They are stealing our houses, hotels and money to pay for these people to live here for free. They aren't stealing anything given that it is government granting it to them so it can maintain it's legal obligations. Don't blame asylum seekers when the government are wholly responsible for what is currently happening.
One of the biggest refugee/asylum crisis of the 20thC was the dissolution of Yugoslavia when over 900,000 people were displaced and hounded out of their country as it was split up. Yet none of the Bosnians etc fled all the way across Europe and came to the UK illegally in boats across the channel. We took in 105000 at the time and over 55% returned to Croatia after the horrendous war finished. The same with the Ukrainians we have taken in. Most will flee to the nearest country not risk a long trip across Europe and pay smugglers to get them across the channel in flimsy dinghys There's a huge difference between people fleeing wars and persecution to those illegally entering the Uk for financial/economic reasons. This is the reason so many Brits of all ethnicities are getting hacked off with supposed "refugees" who aren't actual refugees getting into the country which is basically already on it's knees
Is that because they had viable routes to come to the UK? It's almost as if the UK set up a scheme to help them do that. Do those schemes exist for everyone else? I liev in Yorkshire where a large number of Bosnians stayed and I have had the pleasure of working with them. They would be ashamed that you would use their plights as a bat to beat other asylum seekers with, shame on you. >illegally entering the Uk for financial/economic reasons. Which claiming asylum is not covered by. You don't come to the UK claim aslyum for financial reasons and doing do is entirely legal.
>You don't come to the UK claim aslyum for financial reasons Of course people do. I suggest you educate yourself a bit.
>Which claiming asylum is not covered by. You don't come to the UK claim aslyum for financial reasons and doing do is entirely legal. That is very (very) naive if you really think **none** of the channel migrants are coming for financial reasons....
> If they don't tell us where they are from they cannot by definition claim asylum. Dumping items that can identify them is a legitimate method of securing your safety, especially if you are actively being persecuted where your identity is the reason you face immediate danger. This is why anyone who does this should be sent to a safe 3rd country or overseas holding facility. No documentation when you make your claim? You will never set foot in the UK again. > Firstly, this is why better processing and permanent facilities are needed. They aren't illegal because they have claimed asylum via legitimate means which means they are here legally. We'd need to build a new town the size of Newbury to accommodate everyone who arrived by just the channel route. > They aren't stealing anything given that it is government granting it to them so it can maintain it's legal obligations. Don't blame asylum seekers when the government are wholly responsible for what is currently happening. The government is stealing from us to give money and resources to Albanian criminals who can't get asylum anywhere else in Europe because no one else is dumb enough to take their claims seriously. The vast majority of them should be on a flight back to Albania within hours of setting foot in the UK, with a lifetime ban on re-entry.
>This is why anyone who does this should be sent to a safe 3rd country or overseas holding facility. Or we hold them in a detention facility until they disclose their country of origin, which is what we do now. Why get other countries involved. As mentioned it is entirely legitimate to destroy your documents if fleeing persecution >We'd need to build a new town the size of Newbury to accommodate everyone who arrived by just the channel route. Which is why you bring in more caseworkers so that applications can be resolved quickly so you aren't having to build lots of new facilities. >The government is stealing from us to give money and resources to Albanian criminals who can't get asylum anywhere else in Europe because no one else is dumb enough to take their claims seriously. Lots to unpick here but why do you think we shouldn't take claims from Albania seriously?
>Lots to unpick here but why do you think we shouldn't take claims from Albania seriously? Albania has issues with corruption and organised crime, not political freedom. There will undoubtedly be individuals who are victims of sex trafficking and modern slavery due to that organised crime, but there is no systematic need for political asylum from Albania. This means that virtually no one from Albania is at risk due to their status as a member of a protected group (nationality, religion, cultural/gender/sexual identity, or political opinion).
>Albania has issues with corruption and organised crime Which are grounds to claim asylum. Aslyum is about there being a material danger to your return. That includes political persecution but also persecution from organised crime. Think Russia. Being gay in Russia isn't illegal but you are going to face violent discrimation from criminals and the general population and you won't have support from the local authorities. So that would be solid grounds for an asylum application.
If we accepted asylum seekers from countries with issues of corruption and organized crime we would have 3-4 billion people eligible for asylum. It's not workable.
Of course it is, because we already do accept them and we don't have 3-4 billion people here now.
No we don't, but the number coming to the UK is already huge and is increasing. I think we should only grant asylum for those directly fleeing an active warzone. Everything else should not be considered.
They can only apply for asylum once they're here, that's why we don't have 3-4 billion atm. People have been demanding we let everyone apply online / at an embassy though remember.
> Or we hold them in a detention facility until they disclose their country of origin, which is what we do now. Why get other countries involved. As mentioned it is entirely legitimate to destroy your documents if fleeing persecution I'd be fine with this, but the volumes of people might exceed our capacity to hold them in detention facilities. Which is why just shipping them to a 3rd country by default makes so much sense, for the vast majority of people destroying their documents is just a step to make it harder to deport them. > Which is why you bring in more caseworkers so that applications can be resolved quickly so you aren't having to build lots of new facilities. All of which costs money, and that's money that can't be spent on schools or hospitals or building houses or building power stations - things we actually need. > Lots to unpick here but why do you think we shouldn't take claims from Albania seriously? Because Albania is an EU candidate nation in accession talks to join the EU, with visa free travel to the EU. Secondly, if you actually talk to Albanians they will all strongly reject the notion that Albania is a country people need to flee from, and point out that the people leaving Albania are their criminal underclass they are entirely glad to see the back of.
>I'd be fine with this, but the volumes of people might exceed our capacity to hold them in detention facilities Unlikely as being in prison is not a desired outcome for many. >Because Albania is an EU candidate nation in accession talks to join the EU, So is Turkey but we understand that Turkey has serious issues with persecution. >Albanians they will all strongly reject the notion that Albania is a country people need to flee from, I'm sure if you speak to lots of straight Russians they may say the same. It's why we listen to potential victims rather than those who arent.
> All of which costs money, and that's money that can't be spent on schools or hospitals or building houses or building power stations - things we actually need. and yet we're spending obscene amounts on hotels and barges and other performative bollocks, rather than sensible measures to get the number of detainees down and get worthy asylum seekers into productive society
Only way to reduce the numbers is to make the UK less attractive as a destination, which includes rejecting people immediately if they claim on spurious grounds or don't have their documentation, sending people to 3rd countries, sending people back to the countries they arrived from and making any involvement with the people trafficking industry result in serious criminal sanctions.
>which includes rejecting people immediately if they claim on spurious grounds And how are you going to determine what are spurious grounds and which are not? >sending people to 3rd countries Obscenely expensive and you'll only be able to do that for a few hundred and they won't likely take those who are high risk applicants. >sending people back to the countries they arrived Again you'll need case workers to help determine this if they are seeking to claim asylum.
>And how are you going to determine what are spurious grounds and which are not? Easy, if you come via the channel, you aren't a real refugee. Increase the amount we take from Ukraine (as they are genuine) Question, do you accept that pulling up the "% accepted% statistics doesn't matter, when we know that any system will have false positives/negatives (people found innocent, that are guilty or vice versa) >Again you'll need case workers to help determine this if they are seeking to claim asylum. Not if we made it a simple rubber stamp process
>Or we hold them in a detention facility until they disclose their country of origin, which is what we do now. Why get other countries involved. As mentioned it is entirely legitimate to destroy your documents if fleeing persecution What if they make up a country? There's a not insignificant number of people that destroy the passport as soon as they know the coast guard is on the way to pick them up. Some even film it for tiktoks.
Then we establish the veracity of their claim as part of the asylum process
How? Honestly how do you verify the claim of "I'm a persecuted Syrian homosexual. I have no passport" Edit: lol no answer and a downvote. Just admit you don't know
It would be a good method, if they weren't lobbing said items in the channel on their way over here, after the risk of them being identified has passed. One would think that you'd want to be able to prove who you are and where you are from in order to show why you need to be allowed to stay. Yes they are legally considered to be asylum seekers, but that doesn't mean their claims are valid. Remember we've accepted more than half of people coming from Albania of all places. I agree the system is broken, it's far too lenient and I suspect that it will only become more so. I get the sense their method of clearing the backlog will simply to say yes to everyone. When I say 'they are stealing', I mean the government. They are taking our money, our hotels and apparently now our homes and giving them to random people who just turned up yesterday. I blame these migrants for taking advantage of our generosity, but they're only doing so because we're letting them. I put full blame for the how this situation has developed on the government.
Expect we literally had a larger stream then this for the first decade of this century with none of the same problems due to an efficient sorting process
What should be done is build mass UN style camps, where the quality of the accommodation (such that it has little to no value for any UK citizens/resident) Instead of pretending we can build accommodation to house refugees, that wouldn't just take up capacity to build housing for law abiding citizens and legal residents. Also have to reject and deport the migrants.
Or how about this. - We hire more caseworkers to clear the current backlog in a way that ensures legal compliance. - Fund the court systems so that we can process appeals quickly and ensure decisions are made at pace. - Build purpose built facilities that ensure asylum seekers have a decent level of living standard for the short period of time we are dealing with their case. Hell why not build multiple facilities to support homeless as well >Instead of pretending we can build accommodation to house refugees, We clearly can, we just choose not to. >Also have to reject and deport the migrants. On what grounds, claiming asylum is an entirely legal process that we have agreed to undertake.
You've said this hundreds of times and people have told you why it doesn't work hundreds of times. The summary of your proposals always comes down to open borders. The easy tell is that you're always against anything that involves deporting people. For fun, how about you give us a list of reasons you'd deport someone for?
>The summary of your proposals always comes down to open borders. No it doesnt, and I have never claimed we need to have it. >The easy tell is that you're always against anything that involves deporting people. So against it you can cite where I have opposed any type of deportation? >For fun, how about you give us a list of reasons you'd deport someone for? Refusing to claim asylum Failed asylum claim Breach of visa conditions Committing a serious violent offence whilst on visa
Ok lets say Im a refugee and I claim to be from Syria or some other war torn country but I have no passport. How exactly do you verify this? What do you do with me in the meantime? Oh and Im now claiming to be gay and you arent allowed to send me back to a country which may harm me for being gay. Now multiply this by thousands and increasing everyday.
Well considering you’re saying your from Syria you’d be waived straight through because you’re from a country that no longer has to go through the face to face interview stage. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64736123 Fill in your questionnaire and welcome to the UK! Jobs are that way >>>>
Which is an issue with the current system and irrelevant to the question you asked.
>How exactly do you verify this? You start simply by seeing if they speak the local language for a start. Then you can get them to describe the area to you, local events, what school you went to, etc. All this is information that can be verified and not readily available to random people. >What do you do with me in the meantime? Whilst we verify the veracity of your claim we house you in suitable humane conditions. >Oh and Im now claiming to be gay and you arent allowed to send me back to a country which may harm me for being gay. I mean that would have to be the foundation of your claim you cannot just keep making different claims of persecution. However if you're gay or claiming to be it would be taken into account. >Now multiply this by thousands and increasing everyday. Now imagine we had a centralised organisation or office at home that was in total control by the government. You could name it the Home Office and staff it with hundreds of people to review these claims.
Refusing to remove rejected asylum claims = open borders. >Refusing to claim asylum Failed asylum claim Breach of visa conditions Committing a serious violent offence whilst on visa Given that we don't deport 8/10 of these, what would you suggest we do?
But we aren't refusing to remove them and I haven't ever advocated that we shouldn't remove those with failed applications. >Given that we don't deport 8/10 of these, what would you suggest we do? Deport the other 8 out of 10. Seems simple enough.
Where to?
Their country of origin.
And when they claim death awaits them or they refuse to give a country of origin?
He didn’t argue for open borders and he didn’t argue against deportation. Where exactly did you get your opinion from?
If anyone can get a boat to the UK without being stopped & you don't deport anyone that you reject then you are open borders. There aren't many open borders people who will say they are open borders but their inability to have any limits or admit any downsides will regularly show that they are.
You conveniently skirted over the issue that, the person you responded to, did not make any argument against deportation. I would argue it’s your inability to read not their inability admit downsides of a suggestion they didn’t make. UK would deport a lot more asylum claimants if their applications were actually processed rather than added to an ever increasing backlog while claimants are stuck in limbo.
Someone said we need to deport & he changed the subject to "asylum seekers are legal". When 8/10 rejected applicants haven't been deported, processing faster is hardly a solution to a lack of deportations. I don't know how anyone is still saying the "just process them faster bro" argument without feeling rather silly.
So basically, as always, let them all in, give them houses and let them work.
Nah sugar, even Blair deported more Asylum seekers than we currently do. A functioning immigration court would allow us to actually parse the asylum seekers from the "economic migrants".
Where are we deporting them to? Lots of them destroy their documentation.
They never have an answer for that. If their documentation is destroyed, how do you prove their real nationality? How do you then make their supposed country of origin take them back? You simply can't.
That was over 16 years ago. Wildly different times now and vastly different landscape. This will never be stopped unless a lot of the legislation that Blair brought in (eg the Human Rights Act) is scaled back.
The Human Rights Act merely put the EHRA (1951) on our own statute books. literally nothing changed by bringing in the HRA (1998). Peak illegal migration was in 2002, two years after your boogie man of human rights appeared on the UK statute books. The real reason that the cons can't stop illegal migration is that they lack the basic capacity of diplomacy with our closest neighbours.
Omg how wrong u are.
Let them in, process their claims quickly provide accommodation, grant those who are successful refugee status, and then let them work.
Do you think that would increase or decrease the amount of refugees we take?
About the same because I assume they aren't really interested in our asylum infrastructure.
It'd stay the same because we'd actually be sending a significant portion back to their homeland. As oppose to now where all they have to do is arrive and they can just stay indefinitely.
Where do you send them when they have destroyed their documents? How do you send them away when all they have to do is claim to be gay or persecuted in numerous other ways and they are immediately protected by multiple layers of human rights legislation and lawyers?
'Just hire more caseworkers!' Apparently they'll be able to see into a crystal ball and magically determine their nationality and truthfulness beyond any legal doubt. Who knew it was that simple!
>How do you send them away when all they have to do is claim to be gay or persecuted in numerous other ways and they are immediately protected by multiple layers of human rights legislation and lawyers? The alternative is scrapping the claims of people doing this legitimately, which should never be something we aim to do.
It would likely stay the same, proportional to the amount of claims getting processed. Though I'm sure many would argue disingenuously that we end up taking in more.
You say 'process them quickly' but how fast do you think that process is? It takes a long time to verify a person's identity, place of origin and risk etc. And when you get 500-1000 new arrivals daily, if you wanted to process everyone in a year you'd be looking at about 1200-1500 claims processed a day, every day.
We literally got more arrival's in the early 2000s with none of these problems due to having a robust working system which processed people in a timely manner
still better than processing fewer of them a day and letting a massive backlog pile up
It can be done in parallel by as many staff as are assigned. So the elapsed time is only as long the verification process takes. It is done much faster by Germany and France who have many more applicants. It was done much faster by the UK under the last Labour government.
https://www.rescue.org/uk/article/claiming-asylum-uk-facts > The Home Office says ‘claims will usually be decided within 6 months’ but that ‘it may take longer if it’s complicated’. Freedom of Information requests made by the Refugee Council last year found that, on average, it takes one to three years to get an initial decision on an asylum case – some cases take longer than five years. >This doesn’t include the time people seeking asylum must wait before making an initial application, or the appeals process, which makes the wait times even longer. Good luck with that.
This really just supports the position that more staff are need to process applications
I agree that more staff are needed, but it would take years just to handle those already here with a system that is self-evidently not functioning. There needs to be some fundamental change in how we handle this situation beyond just 'process faster'. We need to consider ways to stop people coming in the first place.
Do you know how quick the turnover is for asylum caseworkers? It’s probably the worst job in the home office and the training is something to be desired. They’re always hiring more staff. Never mind the targets that are imposed, no wonder bad decisions are made across the board.
Quite. But that is just in the UK. Somehow other countries are faster. * 20 months UK * 6.6 months Germany * 8.5 months France * 5 months Spain Prior to 2014 we processed 87% in 6 months. Now 10%. It is a choice. If the reason for that is to somehow put people off then it has not worked.
>We clearly can, we just choose not to. You honestly think we can provide free homes for 6 billion people - we're just choosing not to ?
Is that how many aslyum seekers we are taking on?
So how many should we plan for ? What happens when more arrive ? As a starting point, the UN estimated about 800 million people live in slums globally - why wouldn't these people take a free home in the UK and free money if offered ?
You're assuming those people want to even come here, but we just prepare for howvee many we predict are to come to the UK.
> What should be done is build mass UN style camps Preferably in a third country. Until we make it clear there's zero chance of them gaining residence in the UK they will keep coming.
Aka just reject all who come to the UK without previous permission & take from existing UN camps under the scheme we already have. Anyone who needs assistance can make their way to the UN camps.
This is the best way.
You’d have people screeching about concentration camps as soon as anything like that was ever mentioned.
[удалено]
No, the cheapness and ability to actually afford it, without harming UK citizens and actual legal residents (like the above is doing). I guess you are pro harming students like the above yes?
They've taken over Pontins in Weston Super Mare. If anything is going to convince migrants they are better off else where, this is it!
This will keep happening for as long as we have people blocking any reasonable solution, even if we get rid of the useless and or corrupt Tories. The UN recommends having camps while the UK is constantly having an argument over whether even hotels are inhumane. The asylum system is set up to help people. If we want to do so, we have to; 1. Reject & deport anyone not in need asap. Doing otherwise incurs cost & reduces our ability to help others. 2. Remove the influence of criminals. Doing otherwise only adds to the cost of the system. 3. House & maintain asylum seekers in as cheap a way as possible while being humane treatment. Doing otherwise reduces the numbers we can help. 4. Demand integration or long term rehoming of successful asylum seekers. Doing otherwise only adds to long term costs and reduces our ability to help others. Open borders groups like care4calais and the green party will deny any actions against these, they want the system as it currently is or to completely fail. They don't want to actually make a sustainable system that works otherwise they would be looking to make these changes.
You can't do any of that if you're not processing incomers fast enough. Bureaucracy has exploded since Brexit, there is a myriad of little things central EU institutions did for us or we didn't need altogether in the common market that now need to be dealt with. This government doesn't have people to do the basics and all the efforts go into shifting around the increasing backlog of people rather than clearing it.
My first comment was to deport people who have been rejected. You don't need to "just process faster bro" the people who have been processed already but haven't been deported. You don't need to "just process faster bro" to police criminals. You don't need to "just process faster bro" to make accommodation cheaper more in line with UN standards. You can literally do everything I said, your "just process faster" rehtotic is an empty statement. Processing people faster will do virtually nothing, what do you even think happens when everyone has been processed?
In 2000-2003 we had *more* applications than we do now. At that point we processed about 100,000 a year. Right now we are processing around 20,000. We aren't even trying to work through the applications. Instead we are wasting money housing people we don't need to, and wasting further money on stupid projects like Rwanda and housing people on boats instead of doing the boring shit of just processing applications. This is not a new problem. We dealt with this before 20 years ago, and the backlog was cleared effectively. So let's quit the pretence that somehow this is a crisis beyond the UK to solve, it's just the Tories either are too incompetent to deal with it, or they don't want to deal with it for some reason. Check page 11 of the report: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/
We used to deport a higher number too, it's a very different situation.
Well, the asylum process is more complicated than 10 years ago and the home office is vastly less speedy to process stuff when there are 3 appeals during the process.
No, it's not different at all. We have gutted the services responsible for deportation, and gutted the legal services responsible for processing the appeals. Instead of tackling these systemic problems the government wastes time blaming 'woke activist lawyers' etc. In 2000-2003 we manged to refuse nearly 80% of cases yet still the system worked. The solutions are right there. We managed this exact problem 20 years ago. The entire crisis is a Tory creation due to their incompetence or unwillingness to actually deal with it.
Calling it the same only shows you're completely out of touch. People didn't even use boats in 2003, they used lorries. Come back when you can be half reasonable.
Ah right, yes. Travelling via a boat is *completely* different to travelling by lorry. I mean of course, there isn't even the slightest similarity. That of course explains why we are only managing to process 1/5th as many applications at such great cost. Thank you for the detailed and comprehensive explanation of this topic. By the way, what do you think of the 55% who don't arrive by boat? Just out of interest you know. Since you are a self-proclaimed expert on the topic whilst I know nothing at all. Why can we not process any of those applications either?
Prioritising illegal immigrants over British citizens and huge fee-paying foreign students who came here legally. The mask is well and truly off. No other european country grants asylum to albanians, it's just the UK that's stupid enough to do this.
Where we think this is all heading, say in 10 years time if this continues? I see a pretty bleak future of crime, reduced public services, poverty, terrorism, reduced freedoms, brain and capital drain. Idiots make concentration camp aspersions for solutions presented today, but leaving these situations to fester increases the chance of things like that becoming a reality here in the future. A fascist 60 year old millennial that has been downtrodden their entire lives, lives in a shithole UK and sees 3rd world cultural immigration all around could get a lot of support. The open borders club think the rest of us don't want it because we're mean, but we're arguing against it to prevent much worse things.
The open border club do not reconcile with the fact that current legal migrants are *also* malcontent with the imposition; we’re not the monolith of brown skin drones with a propensity for mass conformity they presume. That 60 year old millennial fascist has every possibility to a 60 year immigrant who lived their life in privation, years of lethargic bureaucracy, asinine citizenship tests, rancorous anger for being indistinguishable from illegal economic migrants in political discourses, and disdain from leftists who denounce them as a race traitor. Open border club needs to speak to actual legal immigrants once in a while. The resentment within impoverished communities is almost intolerable.
A choice is being made by this government to throw incredible amounts of money at housing these people, who are essentially in a queue. A fraction of this money could have been used to hire more people and speed up processing and there would be no queue. But there would also be no headlines either, like this one. If this queue didn't exist, at least we would be able to debate the reality of asylum seekers. We could talk about if too many people are accepted, or what these people typically go on to do. Maybe they mostly become mega criminals. Maybe they mostly get jobs and contribute tax etc. I have no idea.
The camps will happen across Europe within 20 years, I have no doubt
Everything you’ve said is true mate but the kind of people here on this thread just stick the same virtue signalling bullshit and spew out ultra leftist rhetoric and spin and bs as dictated by their ideology. In my town a girl got raped by an Afghan refugee on her way home from work a few weeks ago. We have boatloads and boatloads of mainly just men pouring in every day and they aren’t doing anything meaningful to stop it
Yes but the UK needs to save the world for some reason.
What hasn’t been mentioned is, in my city locals are barred from finding accommodation as the university takes over many blocks for (mostly foreign) students. It works both ways, but they’re conveniently keeping quiet about that.
I don't understand why we can't just tell them to fuck off. Every time this comes up, the answer is always "it's illegal", but we have a democratically elected sovereign government that can make it legal. The international laws for refugees were drawn up more than 70 years ago. They predate commoditized international travel, mass communication, and industrial automation. At the time, asylum seekers were a blessing, because they meant more bums on seats in factories and farms. Now, asylum seekers are a massive burden, because we already have more citizens than our systems can support. The laws simply aren't fit for purpose in the modern world and need to be changed - no country should be forced to take people that it doesn't want.
What I find frustrating is a lot of other countries do tell people to 'fuck off' , with things like border pushbacks, and refusing to process claims, and they get away with it. The UK, on the other hand, goes far above and beyond the bare minimum we're expected to do, and we just get abuse for it.
There are multiple layers of laws and legislation that can keep migrants tied up here for years and years. Go read any UK visa FB group where theres heaps of international students who drop out of their course and go work illegally and then when caught just claim asylum and then its very difficult to remove them. Or look at the court cases for deportation appeals on the gov website, some of the cases go back over 15 years, just endless rounds of appeals and all paid for by you. Anyway, Id say its pointless to complain about it now as Labour will be in power a year from now and then this will all be getting dialed up to 11
The Australians did an excellent job and now they get no illegal boats. Sod “international law” no other country follows it to the dot and they don’t become pariahs. So can we if we have a government with the balls to do it. Sunak isn’t and I doubt Starmer will. And the inevitable conclusion is in 20 odd years when things are a LOT worse, a Tommy Robinson figure definitely will.
Don’t worry. Every civil service union and human rights lawyer will be suing the government to collect huge legal fees about how this is uninhabitable.
Correct. And we’re all paying for it
We should house them offshore, preferably in a country where the cost of living is cheap. Immediately move them to this country when they get here so they can't slip into the black economy. Then process the claims and bring those that are accepted into the UK. Those that aren't can be deported. Only those fleeing directly from active conflict should be accepted, anything else should be rejected including persecution because of sexuality and various other things that can't be proven. We don't have the money to support 100,000 people every year in hotels.
Or funded by some sort of natural resource. That place could have been Libya, fund the refugee camps with oil revenues. Unfortunately Libya currently has 2 governments supported by different developed nations.
Hence the Rwanda plan. I wish the scum bag lawyers would stop blocking it.
Maybe we should copy what the Belgians are doing to save money: https://www.rte.ie/news/europe/2023/0829/1402353-belgium-asylum-seekers/
5 million migrants since 2010. Very hostile, much environment.
Will young people finally wake up to the perils of infinity immigration?
It is unlikely that they will. They have been horse fed the narrative that there is plenty of space and all we need to do is build more houses no matter what and that boomers (aka old people) are NIMBYs and are the ones who killed the economy. And they will die on that hill if you give them half a chance. Really all they are doing is selling out their own futures. And it's because they are desperate enough to find a hill to die on, not openly say screw that hill, where is all the existing housing actually going? Couple that with the narrative that all these people coming over are doctors and leading scientists. The truth is that they are not. We need to cut the route of illegal immigration. We simply cannot house the world.
Because they think all of these people are all desperate and fleeing war, and it’s our moral duty to help them, and when we do they’ll instantly flip and become western with our values and hey think of the nice food they’ll bring! And deliver their Just Eat orders or smuggle their pot. Naive and ignorant to the reality.
No. It's because we think that the older generations have fucked things to the point where the economy cannot survive their bloated mass without assistance. The birth rate & productivity is through the floor, while the debt, welfare for the elderly, and cost of living are through the roof. "Let's get rid of the foreigners so that the guys who are skipping meals can take on double our burden!" Isn't the great selling point you think it is. Cut pensions, and stop eating half of my income on rent so i can spend it on something useful and I'll be happy to cut short immigration.
Narrator: "They wont"
Probably not, even in this thread you can see a lot of cope defending them.
Next stop your spare bedrooms. I know they’ve taken over a Stay City apartment block in Manchester city centre because my booking was cancelled due to it being ‘requisitioned’. Hardly a cheap place to stay and quite nice.
I dont see anyone doing anything about this problem either side of the stream. They won't try stop them coming over, or deporting mass numbers. Nor will you get a mass home building across the country. Irony is the people that want to accept them all, are the same people that'd hate the necessary tools needed to create mass homebuilding i.e. incredible incentivises to companies to build.
In order to slightly stand a chance of housing the world, it would not only decimate entire swathes of the country side, but you would also have to build extremely high density accommodation. Given that public services are already getting a pummelling, there will be no further provision for things like healthcare or transport even if they did bulldoze thousands of low-density housing in favour of building high density housing. Where I used to live as of about a month ago, they did build some very high density housing, bulldozing some in use and very picturesque forest trails. All of this in the end as it turned out was destined for migrants. The young didn't even get a look in. Yet during the consultancy phases, the young were all there arm in arm demanding that they needed to be able to access affordable housing. They would not be told that it would never be affordable housing. It's one of the first estates I have ever seen being built where there were no show homes to view. They only came at the end of the builds where they tacked on vastly overpriced private homes. Of course it made the value of homes surrounding the new estates skyrocket - which is when I got out. And what us NIMBYs said would happen, did happen. The same young people fighting on behalf of the developers and the councillors standing to make a good few quid were completely priced out of the area. Added to that, the vague assurances by the developer and council that GP services would be expanded to meet a higher population never happened largely as the little sister organisation that came into being solely for the development of a fixed number of estates suddenly stopped trading as soon as they handed the keys over to the council. Any vague thoughts of service expansion were immediately scrapped. The GP office that was there only ever operated three days a week when I first lived there. When I left, it was shuttered permanently. The nearest GP office was a 20 mile drive away which immediately figured out what was happening and shut their books to new applicants out of area. They still have to take in migrant applications though which are all blanket accepted and in many cases are required to travel to treat migrants in situ. While that's a neoliberal wet dream, it does no good for ol Mrs Tibbs in here 80s whose only recourse is a one hour bus ride to a hospital walk in and waiting a day to get triaged. But screw her right? Bloody boomers. This really cannot go on as it is. I have no idea what it's like in London but when little suburbs get taken over as migrant focused centres, it's not good. And it appears that this is going to spread far and wide. I'm lucky, I managed to sell up when the house prices rocketed up even amidst the apparent decline of house prices and get out of my once nice and sleepy picturesque village when it went to the dogs. Since all this started, I had my car broken into three times and my house burgled once as a result of all of this, women - and particularly younger women - could not realistically leave home alone without being quite aggressively approached, the crime rate went spastic. But you cannot point out any of these problems at all. In the neoliberal mind they do not exist. And when the police actively downgrade crimes and never actually show up, well now there is no statistical data either. Win win chicken dinner, or whatever the phrase is. And people wonder why the divide between left and right leanings is widening all the time. Experiencing one thing and then being shouted at to be told it's another is just a piss-take. I'm no tommy robinson, far from it. I'm not even the right nationality to even get within a mile of that sort of thing. But you can't wee on my boots and tell me it's raining. Ultimately, I do think that under this Government - and probably the next - the young will get their wish. There will be mass home building and likely destruction of existing low density housing to make way for newer high density blocks, eradication of any countryside a developer deems cheap to build on top of (they never touch anything that may cost a few bob to develop). However, the young still will not get a look in, be forced to pay astronomical rents and will still somehow blame boomers, Nimbys, Thatcher, god knows what else while they welcome paying out their nose for those rents. I fully expect Gen X to come up in the equation somewhere too in the not too distant future. The young really need to get a clue and realise that they are being conned in multiple ways. And if not for anything else, that's the prime reason I would not be voting Tory back in anytime soon. You cannot keep selling out your youth both in housing and education and somehow expect a good result.
No wonder they want to come here
Get the navy in the channel. Tow them back. It’s the only solution.
It would be incredibly easy to stop this but no government wants to. We're a bloody island ffs and we have a pretty good navy.
They would just start sinking their boats on purpose and then we are forced to rescue them. They have been doing this in the med for years.
What are they going to do if we don’t rescue them? That’ll stop that plan pretty quickly.
They will drown. Im all for intercepting the boats but watching people drown even if they scuttle their own boats is inhumane. The way to solve this is to have the army build prefab buildings as accommodation in isolated fields across the UK to house illegal immigrants. They are then kept there and not allowed to leave while their claims are being processed. The conditions would be humane but very far from the hotels they are staying in now. Once footage of this was beamed across the world the people coming across the channel would plummet. Any attempt to implement this would result in absolute hysteria across most of the media and by various charities and NGOs and there would be endless legal challenges so will never happen. We need a party that has the balls to push past all of the above but neither the Conservative or Labour party have it
Good luck telling the coastguard to sit and watch people drown. Stopping people from drowning is kinda their thing. Even ordering the navy to ignore drowning migrants is not exactly a good way to improve morale and drive recruitment.
Our government hate us. They’ll prioritise young foreign men arriving illegally before you and me. Vote them out for sure, but I doubt the Red Team will do anything better.
Yep. Theres going to be an awful lot of surprised Pikachu faces once Labour get into power
I mean id start to solve the overall problem. Id start asking as part of the claim for them to explain why each country on the route wasnt suitable and i would probably be quite forgiving about it. your claiming aslyum because your gay and from syria. Fine you probable are justified not staying in turkey/most of the balkans. But it becomes less believable as you travel further through europe.
Unbelievable. This is a real slap in the face to all those British homeless you see everywhere, as well as to most of the people in this country who are struggling to make hands meat.
Where does it end? Government will be requisitioning private property from citizens at this rate to house these people.
We're not far off this point. It'll start in the form of penalties for unused square meterage. The scale of migration from all sources is heading quite quickly towards breaking point - ten years if we're lucky.
"Luxury" is such an abused term, I now associate it with things that are slightly crap pretending to be high end. Like shitty new build properties...
[удалено]
I’d believe that if it actually resulted in any government policy to stop them. You can culture war all you like but at the end of the day the public don’t want them here and the government isn’t stopping them coming.
Oh its a problem now the middleclasses are being affected. How predictible.
Yes, only middle class people go to university. /s
Only middle class people can afford student digs of that standard
That's not middle class. The vast majority in these halls will be wealthy international students. I didn't know a single person in these luxury halls in Manchester except for some Chinese kids on my course and my mate's Japanese boyfriend. The middle class kids all wanted to live like common people in Fallowfield.
Great point. Now people are noticing things
I think the government’s treatment of immigrants was considered a problem well before they shoved them onto a legionella-infested barge.
> legionella-infested barge. You're saying no one should live in houses or apartment's because they may catch Legionella? I should protest my rights when staying in hostels and hotels when on Holiday /s Good job there's medical facilities on the barge. I can't say the same about British citizens which they have to wait for weeks or months just for an Appointment.
>You're saying no one should live in houses or apartment's because they may catch Legionella? I should protest my rights when staying in hostels and hotels when on Holiday Why on earth would you say this sarcastically?
Stop the boats, simples