Maybe there is an argument to be had that it is mainly because they are being forced to come to the UK by Human trafficking gangs.
According to the 2021 census, Albanian nationals account for the highest foreign population in UK prisons with an incarceration figure per 1000 nationals of 18.54. The second highest…
Iraq at 2.90.
Now, to me those figures suggest that there is an organised element involved.
But that’s because it is illegal to just travel into other countries and they are not forced to break the Law, they choose to. I accept that a lot are put in a position where they feel there is no other option.
The sad part is that there is most likely a high number of genuine AS who don’t have the funds to pay traffickers for illegal routes and so are stuck.
I do some work with migrant workers here in Singapore working in the manual labour sector and each individual has a story that will touch your heart, no one really wants to leave their home and family to come so far.
However, laws are laws and we cannot disregard laws because of compassion, as much that compassion can and should find it’s place in dispensation of laws.
And the norm for anyone arriving a country, the basic agreement is that they must arrive legally. No if’s and buts. Only when this foundation is agreed on, then you can start filtering out the exceptions based on compassion. It would be unfair to lambast any government for applying the law, neither is it as simple as having an asylum process. Because in the crux of any asylum process is the question, how do you verify that each individual is really in danger? I understand from some people that the UK does not seem to have a proper asylum process and accepting and deporting people randomly? So they probably can start there but even then the basis must be the law and the message is that acceptance of asylum is not an exception to the laws.
Your post raises some good points but also some I would question.
IMO the “stop the boats” is not a charade or Manufactured to distract from them stripping public services. It’s a real thing, which is why Labour have also acknowledged it.
*nb. I am not denying that the Tories may have used it for their own reasons.
Yes, I believe you are right, a system would see more refugees being situated in the UK. I have no problem with this but there would need to be a structure in place for housing them and integrating them into society and also a limit as to numbers. Europe cannot take every person seeking Asylum.
Regarding the third point, we have no obligation to support those fleeing persecution but we do so on ethical terms. I agree, we could do more but where do you draw the line?
As mentioned on this forum, we already have a large population living in poverty. Struggling for adequate housing, going without heating, food, etc.
Finally, if the politicians ignore the public who have concerns about immigration - not necessarily Racist or Xenophobic. You just promote parties who play off that. All you have to do is look at mainland Europe and the rise in popularity of “Right Wing” parties.
There are 6 European countries governed by parties you could label RW. You then have Le Penn in France and the AFD in Germany polling at 30%.
So to put it more simply, the governments of the two biggest countries in the EU - in terms of power/influence - are under a realistic threat of being ousted out of power, by RW political parties.
So, whilst it may not be favourable to many, I think it would be wise to listen to people concerns and not just dismiss them all as being Racist.
A really good and well worded post. As you touched upon, how do you verify that each individual is really in danger.
I think you have hit the nail on the head when you say that the UK does not seem to have a proper asylum process and I think that’s my biggest frustration.
The Tories wasted a large amount of money on the idea of deporting people to Rwanda. For me that is a reactive, rather than a proactive way of addressing the problem. The UK gives France a large amount of money, a figure which seems to be growing per year. Maybe, we should just cancel that and invest the money in creating a process to deal with the issue in an effective manner.
The only problem with this, is that it may potentially lead to more boat crossings and the risk of more lives being lost.
Just as a jumping off point, regarding the asylum debate, what is Europe going to when Climate Change makes the tropics inhospitable, and billions - not millions - of people start heading north?
Can we still peddle the idea that Europe is full when people are deserting Africa and Asia because of a global crisis that we have caused?
I think the conservative government deliberately wound the processing system down in order to manufacture a crisis that they could then claim to be the solution to.
It’s going to take a long time for Labour to sort this out.
In the meantime, I’ve never understood frustrations about migration. We’re an ageing population in an economy with a desperate shortage of labour. It’s fucking bizarre to me that the are people out there who want to throw up walls and borders.
“They’re not like us!”
Says the people who have very little actual personal experience with immigrants. It’s so odd (not really) that it’s usually the places which have really low proportions of migrants that have a really big problem with immigration.
‘But we’re overpopulated and services can’t cope.’
The uk has signed up to the 1951 refugee convention. The tories chose to ignore it and rip the system apart.
Again, having signed up to the 1951 convention we are legally obliged to accept asylum seekers and house them until their claims are processed.
And just to add some weight to the question of legality, people have a legal right to enter and claim asylum. They do not become illegal immigrants until their claim has been processed and they have failed.
Aside from all of that it really bugs me how easy this information is to obtain, but sound bites from those shouting loudly seen to stick more.
It does, it is just the governments since 2010 decided to pull up much of the integrated support available around the process and failed to invest sufficiently in the system itself - instead, as you say, choosing theatrics of the Rwanda scheme. It has then been made worse by the under resourcing of Local Authorities and the housing system.
Streeting claims that the jabs would not be made compulsory.
What kind of question is that? From the journalist in question.
Talk about a skewed press trying to be clever
1st point, you are probably right. I can’t disagree.
2nd point, I don’t feel they can sort it out. I feel it is an issue that will never be sorted irrelevant of Government. But it definitely needs to be better managed.
3rd point, there are people out there who want to shoot the Dinghy’s, burn down she hotels which house the asylum seekers. But they are a minority, just look at the small turn outs at the protests.
Not everyone with concern’s want to build walls? And their concerns aren’t just limited to Labour shortage. Also, addressing Labour shortage with unskilled, non/limited English speaking individuals is not the answer.
I am a Site Manager, in construction, so have had exposure to a foreign labour workforce. Some of my best contractors are foreign, Ukrainian, Polish, Moldovan but they are predominantly skilled and speak/understand broken English. On the flip side some of my worst contractors are skilled British, who understand English (although sometimes questionable) but want to talk back, do their own thing.
However, in my industry and I would assume many others, skills and communication is important and the answer is not to just replace it with a young labour force, it does not solve the problem. When I, or another contractor shouts ‘Stop’, ‘watch out’, ‘Fire’ and they turn around bemused, smile, nod their head and say yes sir it is of no help to anyone.
Really…. I may not agree with some of your points, likewise you may not agree with mine but let’s keep it relatively and not speculatively.
But to try and humour your point.
Would you agree that industrial, Urban countries, and the demand from their population for Cars, Air travel, Deliveroo’s, IPads, cheap clothes, plastic bottles of water, food production, emissions from construction, the reduction of natural land and therefore increasing the issues such as water run off, are a major issue and contribute to Climate Change???
I am going to assume from your posts that you would agree. So, would you agree that by accepting anyone and everyone and increasing the demand for these products/services it may actually accelerate these issues? This is without taking into consideration that as a Country, we can’t even provide, shelter, warmth, food for the current population?
Thank you for enlightening me about the 1951 convention. I hold my hands up and accept my point was factually incorrect.
That being said, reading the documentation (and trying to understand its terminology) it only relates to Refugees and not asylum seekers. Further more my understanding is that they are deemed as ‘undocumented’ or ‘illegal’ if they have entered a country out of line with the countries policy.
As I say, I am happy to accept that my point was not 100% factually correct, but neither are yours. The problem is that the wording is very ambiguous and how do you define/determine a persons situation.
I think we, and the majority on this forum want a better system. It’s just doing it in a measured manner.
So aside from bashing the Tories you agree with my point?
Im guessing you’ve never needed a GP appointment, or tried to register as an NHS dental patient?
And you’re obviously not a younger person looking for local authority council housing?
As I have said before, there is more than enough money kicking around for all of that.
We just choose to deny ourselves nice things.
Much better to finance an inbred family who ride around cosplaying in a golden carriage, and to fund yachts in exchange for unusable PPE.