Why do so many migrants want to come to the UK, as opposed to staying in the European country they first land in ?
I think we are way too soft and should adopt a similar policy to Australia, which after all is an island like ourselves
Australia is the only country that mandates immigration detention for all “unlawful” arrivals, including those seeking protection as refugees. Australia has had one of the most punitive policies on forced migration in the world, including controls beyond the border; the current U.S. practice of caging “illegal” migrants comes close. But a key distinction is that Australia effectively punishes those who flee to the country for protection.
The harsh conditions in detention to which “unlawful” refugees are subjected have been touted by successive Australian governments as a crucial plank of its border security policy. Widespread public support for a punitive detention regime has been driven by a dominant perception since the 1980s that those arriving by boat are either “bogus” refugees – attempting “easy” entry into Australia for economic gain – or that they constitute a security threat. These perceptions are discounted by the reality that most applications for refugee status by “boat arrivals” are approved, with a very high percentage of successful appeals against adverse decisions. Yet there is persistent evidence of ongoing public support for tough border protection coupled with minimal concern about Australia’s reputational damage as a signatory to the Refugee Convention. Unfortunately these views are typically based on misperceptions about refugee movement, fuelled by negative media and government campaigns.
If they got the processing done more quickly and if say75% failed, where do we send them back to?
From where they started their journey .
..... or if they are properly fearful for their lives in that country, then I'm sure Rwanda (or other countries wanting to increase their population) might seem like a better option
Not working Australia’s immigration system is not working for migrants, business, or the country, Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil warns. She said a four-month review — announced by the Federal Government last week — to look into the nation’s migration system would focus on speeding up visa processing times for bringing in skilled workers.
Any Government (including ours) would want this if we didn't have enough skilled workers, which is where the training of our own 16-21 year olds is so vitally important, so that in the future we don't need to rely on migrants, both for skilled and non-skilled jobs
Are you suggesting we start training 16 year olds to work behind bars, pick fruit, and clean hospitals?
You are aware that there is a difference between the following, arent you? Legal immigration. Illegal immigration. Asylum seekers. Student visas. That asylum seekers aren't allowed to work.
Yes I am fully aware
I'm not as thick as you think ........ I just need the extra 'padding' to cushion your 'pointy elbows' DAVE
Then why would you suggest that asylum seekers should work. According to the article you posted over 700,000 people arrived on visas, and 35,000 on small boats. Surely the easy remedy for immigration, based on those figures, would be for the government to issue less visas. Simple.
The increase in the number of student visas issued has come in for some criticism. Wouldnt you expect an increase in numbers based on the previous year, when there was a pandemic on? A reduction in student visas could well cause more problems for businesses as they fill many low paid job vacancies. Foreign students are charged much higher university fees than UK students.
Not working Australia’s immigration system is not working for migrants, business, or the country, Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil warns. She said a four-month review — announced by the Federal Government last week — to look into the nation’s migration system would focus on speeding up visa processing times for bringing in skilled workers.
Any Government (including ours) would want this if we didn't have enough skilled workers, which is where the training of our own 16-21 year olds is so vitally important, so that in the future we don't need to rely on migrants, both for skilled and non-skilled jobs
Critics attack Johnson's plan for 'Australian-style' migration system This article is more than 2 years old PM accused of misleading voters and not understanding value of non-high-skilled jobs
Author: Jonathon Hunyor Estimated Reading Time: 5 mins
What is Australia's criticised offshore asylum system and … https://www.itv.com/news/2022-04-14/whats-australias-offshore-asylum... 14/04/2022 · Australia has been criticised across the spectrum, from United Nations bodies to immigration experts and activists. International charity Doctors Without Borders reported on …
If we are only building around 200,000 new homes each year and taking in 500,000 migrants, are we hoping that there are at least families of 3 in every case? We already have a severe shortage of housing, particularly affordable homes in this country, and taking in this many extra people can only make the situation worse, hence the reason to have to house not only Asylum Seekers, but British families who have been evicted (sometimes through no fault of their own), in Hotels and B+B's.
Having also lived in an area of Sheffield in the 90's where refugees were housed fairly nearby, the massive increase in crime (burglaries, shoplifting, and car break-ins) in that area was found to be down to these refugees.
I also remember an area between Vilamoura and Quateria on the Algarve, where there were lots of refugees living in temporary huts and various types of 'buildings' (known as Soweto) which got raided by the Portuguese Police, and over half a million pounds worth of stolen goods were recovered
Not working Australia’s immigration system is not working for migrants, business, or the country, Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil warns. She said a four-month review — announced by the Federal Government last week — to look into the nation’s migration system would focus on speeding up visa processing times for bringing in skilled workers.
Any Government (including ours) would want this if we didn't have enough skilled workers, which is where the training of our own 16-21 year olds is so vitally important, so that in the future we don't need to rely on migrants, both for skilled and non-skilled jobs
Are you suggesting we start training 16 year olds to work behind bars, pick fruit, and clean hospitals?
We should always train our 16 year olds to become something. Not all 16 - 18 year olds are good academically, but offer them a decent wage and train them to become something in life ........ whether it's Bar Staff or Managers, Farmhands or Labourers, or in particular a career in the Care industry. If you train Care workers towards some form of nursing qualifications, then this would surely help sort some of our desperate need for nurses and qualified Care staff. After all, the more they are paid, the more tax they have to pay, rather than relying on benefits
Why do so many migrants want to come to the UK, as opposed to staying in the European country they first land in ?
I think we are way too soft and should adopt a similar policy to Australia, which after all is an island like ourselves
Australia is the only country that mandates immigration detention for all “unlawful” arrivals, including those seeking protection as refugees. Australia has had one of the most punitive policies on forced migration in the world, including controls beyond the border; the current U.S. practice of caging “illegal” migrants comes close. But a key distinction is that Australia effectively punishes those who flee to the country for protection.
The harsh conditions in detention to which “unlawful” refugees are subjected have been touted by successive Australian governments as a crucial plank of its border security policy. Widespread public support for a punitive detention regime has been driven by a dominant perception since the 1980s that those arriving by boat are either “bogus” refugees – attempting “easy” entry into Australia for economic gain – or that they constitute a security threat. These perceptions are discounted by the reality that most applications for refugee status by “boat arrivals” are approved, with a very high percentage of successful appeals against adverse decisions. Yet there is persistent evidence of ongoing public support for tough border protection coupled with minimal concern about Australia’s reputational damage as a signatory to the Refugee Convention. Unfortunately these views are typically based on misperceptions about refugee movement, fuelled by negative media and government campaigns.
Asylum seekers can only apply for asylum after arriving in the UK. There are no legal routes.
I didn't actually know this....... so there obviously should be.
Maybe a Central Europe, or United Nations Central Areas, where refugees and Asylum Seekers can go to, and apply for Asylum to save then having to take on such hazardous journeys to try and get to the UK
Why do so many migrants want to come to the UK, as opposed to staying in the European country they first land in ?
I think we are way too soft and should adopt a similar policy to Australia, which after all is an island like ourselves
Australia is the only country that mandates immigration detention for all “unlawful” arrivals, including those seeking protection as refugees. Australia has had one of the most punitive policies on forced migration in the world, including controls beyond the border; the current U.S. practice of caging “illegal” migrants comes close. But a key distinction is that Australia effectively punishes those who flee to the country for protection.
The harsh conditions in detention to which “unlawful” refugees are subjected have been touted by successive Australian governments as a crucial plank of its border security policy. Widespread public support for a punitive detention regime has been driven by a dominant perception since the 1980s that those arriving by boat are either “bogus” refugees – attempting “easy” entry into Australia for economic gain – or that they constitute a security threat. These perceptions are discounted by the reality that most applications for refugee status by “boat arrivals” are approved, with a very high percentage of successful appeals against adverse decisions. Yet there is persistent evidence of ongoing public support for tough border protection coupled with minimal concern about Australia’s reputational damage as a signatory to the Refugee Convention. Unfortunately these views are typically based on misperceptions about refugee movement, fuelled by negative media and government campaigns.
Asylum seekers can only apply for asylum after arriving in the UK. There are no legal routes.
I didn't actually know this....... so there obviously should be.
Maybe a Central Europe, or United Nations Central Areas, where refugees and Asylum Seekers can go to, and apply for Asylum to save then having to take on such hazardous journeys to try and get to the UK
Its hard to fathom why allegedly intelligent people would have a rule that states that an application for UK asylum can only be made on UK soil. Then wonder why there are so many small boats arriving. The asylum seekers only represent a very small percentage of the number of arrivals quoted in the first article you posted. Thirty five thousand out of 1.1 million. So around 3% of the total. Those that are concerned should probably worry about the 97% rather than the 3%. This article only seems to itemise just over 700,000. All of whom have arrived on visas. The Tories have been talking about a net migration target of 100,000 since David Cameron. Hows that going then?
If the question was why cant we restrict net migration to 100,000? Then the answer is surely that we issued 1.1 million visas. Not rocket science. If you want less immigration, then issue less visas.
I think that there is a fairly simple solution to the boats as well. You make the crossing illegal, and return them all to France. This would completely stop the crossings fairly quickly.
You would also have to introduce a legal route, and we have to take out fair share, of genuine asylum seekers.
Not working Australia’s immigration system is not working for migrants, business, or the country, Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil warns. She said a four-month review — announced by the Federal Government last week — to look into the nation’s migration system would focus on speeding up visa processing times for bringing in skilled workers.
Any Government (including ours) would want this if we didn't have enough skilled workers, which is where the training of our own 16-21 year olds is so vitally important, so that in the future we don't need to rely on migrants, both for skilled and non-skilled jobs
Are you suggesting we start training 16 year olds to work behind bars, pick fruit, and clean hospitals?
We should always train our 16 year olds to become something. Not all 16 - 18 year olds are good academically, but offer them a decent wage and train them to become something in life ........ whether it's Bar Staff or Managers, Farmhands or Labourers, or in particular a career in the Care industry. If you train Care workers towards some form of nursing qualifications, then this would surely help sort some of our desperate need for nurses and qualified Care staff. After all, the more they are paid, the more tax they have to pay, rather than relying on benefits
What you are completely ignoring is that many unskilled jobs require little training. Anyone that is unemployed and lives in this country could get a job if they wanted to. There are always jobs in agriculture, care homes, behind bars, and in kitchens etc. We currently have somewhere around 1.2 million vacancies. So how could you not get a job. The reason why jobs in these sectors were filled by Eastern Europeans, is because Brits didnt want them. Realistically this is unlikely to change anytime soon.
If we are only building around 200,000 new homes each year and taking in 500,000 migrants, are we hoping that there are at least families of 3 in every case? We already have a severe shortage of housing, particularly affordable homes in this country, and taking in this many extra people can only make the situation worse, hence the reason to have to house not only Asylum Seekers, but British families who have been evicted (sometimes through no fault of their own), in Hotels and B+B's.
Having also lived in an area of Sheffield in the 90's where refugees were housed fairly nearby, the massive increase in crime (burglaries, shoplifting, and car break-ins) in that area was found to be down to these refugees.
I also remember an area between Vilamoura and Quateria on the Algarve, where there were lots of refugees living in temporary huts and various types of 'buildings' (known as Soweto) which got raided by the Portuguese Police, and over half a million pounds worth of stolen goods were recovered
So do you think that the 1.1 million arrivals are all living on the street? Do you that the half a million that left were also living on the street? Or do you think that the new arrivals rent some of the accommodation vacated by those that left? Do you think that those on student visas occupy the accommodation vacated by the previous bunch of students. How many people die every year? Some jobs provide accommodation. Like the NHS who employ many nurses from abroad, and provide them with accommodation.
What were the Sheffield crime figures, and how did they compare with other areas? Where did you get the Soweto crime figures from? People getting evicted has nothing to do with immigration.
Why do so many migrants want to come to the UK, as opposed to staying in the European country they first land in ?
I think we are way too soft and should adopt a similar policy to Australia, which after all is an island like ourselves
Australia is the only country that mandates immigration detention for all “unlawful” arrivals, including those seeking protection as refugees. Australia has had one of the most punitive policies on forced migration in the world, including controls beyond the border; the current U.S. practice of caging “illegal” migrants comes close. But a key distinction is that Australia effectively punishes those who flee to the country for protection.
The harsh conditions in detention to which “unlawful” refugees are subjected have been touted by successive Australian governments as a crucial plank of its border security policy. Widespread public support for a punitive detention regime has been driven by a dominant perception since the 1980s that those arriving by boat are either “bogus” refugees – attempting “easy” entry into Australia for economic gain – or that they constitute a security threat. These perceptions are discounted by the reality that most applications for refugee status by “boat arrivals” are approved, with a very high percentage of successful appeals against adverse decisions. Yet there is persistent evidence of ongoing public support for tough border protection coupled with minimal concern about Australia’s reputational damage as a signatory to the Refugee Convention. Unfortunately these views are typically based on misperceptions about refugee movement, fuelled by negative media and government campaigns.
Asylum seekers can only apply for asylum after arriving in the UK. There are no legal routes.
I didn't actually know this....... so there obviously should be.
Maybe a Central Europe, or United Nations Central Areas, where refugees and Asylum Seekers can go to, and apply for Asylum to save then having to take on such hazardous journeys to try and get to the UK
The EU have a deal with Turkey.
What is the EU doing to help refugees in Turkey? The 2016 deal promised the creation of an EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey, which is a joint coordination mechanism that provides modest financial and other support to more than 1.8 million refugees.
Why do so many migrants want to come to the UK, as opposed to staying in the European country they first land in ?
I think we are way too soft and should adopt a similar policy to Australia, which after all is an island like ourselves
Australia is the only country that mandates immigration detention for all “unlawful” arrivals, including those seeking protection as refugees. Australia has had one of the most punitive policies on forced migration in the world, including controls beyond the border; the current U.S. practice of caging “illegal” migrants comes close. But a key distinction is that Australia effectively punishes those who flee to the country for protection.
The harsh conditions in detention to which “unlawful” refugees are subjected have been touted by successive Australian governments as a crucial plank of its border security policy. Widespread public support for a punitive detention regime has been driven by a dominant perception since the 1980s that those arriving by boat are either “bogus” refugees – attempting “easy” entry into Australia for economic gain – or that they constitute a security threat. These perceptions are discounted by the reality that most applications for refugee status by “boat arrivals” are approved, with a very high percentage of successful appeals against adverse decisions. Yet there is persistent evidence of ongoing public support for tough border protection coupled with minimal concern about Australia’s reputational damage as a signatory to the Refugee Convention. Unfortunately these views are typically based on misperceptions about refugee movement, fuelled by negative media and government campaigns.
Asylum seekers can only apply for asylum after arriving in the UK. There are no legal routes.
I didn't actually know this....... so there obviously should be.
Maybe a Central Europe, or United Nations Central Areas, where refugees and Asylum Seekers can go to, and apply for Asylum to save then having to take on such hazardous journeys to try and get to the UK
The EU have a deal with Turkey.
What is the EU doing to help refugees in Turkey? The 2016 deal promised the creation of an EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey, which is a joint coordination mechanism that provides modest financial and other support to more than 1.8 million refugees.
Why do so many migrants want to come to the UK, as opposed to staying in the European country they first land in ?
I think we are way too soft and should adopt a similar policy to Australia, which after all is an island like ourselves
Australia is the only country that mandates immigration detention for all “unlawful” arrivals, including those seeking protection as refugees. Australia has had one of the most punitive policies on forced migration in the world, including controls beyond the border; the current U.S. practice of caging “illegal” migrants comes close. But a key distinction is that Australia effectively punishes those who flee to the country for protection.
The harsh conditions in detention to which “unlawful” refugees are subjected have been touted by successive Australian governments as a crucial plank of its border security policy. Widespread public support for a punitive detention regime has been driven by a dominant perception since the 1980s that those arriving by boat are either “bogus” refugees – attempting “easy” entry into Australia for economic gain – or that they constitute a security threat. These perceptions are discounted by the reality that most applications for refugee status by “boat arrivals” are approved, with a very high percentage of successful appeals against adverse decisions. Yet there is persistent evidence of ongoing public support for tough border protection coupled with minimal concern about Australia’s reputational damage as a signatory to the Refugee Convention. Unfortunately these views are typically based on misperceptions about refugee movement, fuelled by negative media and government campaigns.
Asylum seekers can only apply for asylum after arriving in the UK. There are no legal routes.
I didn't actually know this....... so there obviously should be.
Maybe a Central Europe, or United Nations Central Areas, where refugees and Asylum Seekers can go to, and apply for Asylum to save then having to take on such hazardous journeys to try and get to the UK
The EU have a deal with Turkey.
What is the EU doing to help refugees in Turkey? The 2016 deal promised the creation of an EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey, which is a joint coordination mechanism that provides modest financial and other support to more than 1.8 million refugees.
If we are only building around 200,000 new homes each year and taking in 500,000 migrants, are we hoping that there are at least families of 3 in every case? We already have a severe shortage of housing, particularly affordable homes in this country, and taking in this many extra people can only make the situation worse, hence the reason to have to house not only Asylum Seekers, but British families who have been evicted (sometimes through no fault of their own), in Hotels and B+B's.
Having also lived in an area of Sheffield in the 90's where refugees were housed fairly nearby, the massive increase in crime (burglaries, shoplifting, and car break-ins) in that area was found to be down to these refugees.
I also remember an area between Vilamoura and Quateria on the Algarve, where there were lots of refugees living in temporary huts and various types of 'buildings' (known as Soweto) which got raided by the Portuguese Police, and over half a million pounds worth of stolen goods were recovered
So do you think that the 1.1 million arrivals are all living on the street? Do you that the half a million that left were also living on the street? Or do you think that the new arrivals rent some of the accommodation vacated by those that left? Do you think that those on student visas occupy the accommodation vacated by the previous bunch of students. How many people die every year? Some jobs provide accommodation. Like the NHS who employ many nurses from abroad, and provide them with accommodation.
What were the Sheffield crime figures, and how did they compare with other areas? Where did you get the Soweto crime figures from? People getting evicted has nothing to do with immigration.
Obviously the new arrivals, students, nurses and care staff from abroad, rent or are given the vacated accommodation, but that still leaves the surplus of 500,000 who are looking for somewhere to live.
People who die every Year are replaced by younger people leaving home and looking for housing.
I don't have the actual figures from 30 years ago in Sheffield, but my girlfriend at the time, worked for South Yorkshire Police, and she told me that the spike in Crime was down to the Somalian refugees who were housed on the edge of Sheffield City Centre
I found out about the Police raid on 'Soweto' as it was known, and the amount of stolen property they found, from the Manager of what was the Dom Pedro Hotel, Vilamoura, which overlooked it. I was running a golf holiday for Sovereign Golf at the time
Why do so many migrants want to come to the UK, as opposed to staying in the European country they first land in ?
I think we are way too soft and should adopt a similar policy to Australia, which after all is an island like ourselves
Australia is the only country that mandates immigration detention for all “unlawful” arrivals, including those seeking protection as refugees. Australia has had one of the most punitive policies on forced migration in the world, including controls beyond the border; the current U.S. practice of caging “illegal” migrants comes close. But a key distinction is that Australia effectively punishes those who flee to the country for protection.
The harsh conditions in detention to which “unlawful” refugees are subjected have been touted by successive Australian governments as a crucial plank of its border security policy. Widespread public support for a punitive detention regime has been driven by a dominant perception since the 1980s that those arriving by boat are either “bogus” refugees – attempting “easy” entry into Australia for economic gain – or that they constitute a security threat. These perceptions are discounted by the reality that most applications for refugee status by “boat arrivals” are approved, with a very high percentage of successful appeals against adverse decisions. Yet there is persistent evidence of ongoing public support for tough border protection coupled with minimal concern about Australia’s reputational damage as a signatory to the Refugee Convention. Unfortunately these views are typically based on misperceptions about refugee movement, fuelled by negative media and government campaigns.
Asylum seekers can only apply for asylum after arriving in the UK. There are no legal routes.
I didn't actually know this....... so there obviously should be.
Maybe a Central Europe, or United Nations Central Areas, where refugees and Asylum Seekers can go to, and apply for Asylum to save then having to take on such hazardous journeys to try and get to the UK
The EU have a deal with Turkey.
What is the EU doing to help refugees in Turkey? The 2016 deal promised the creation of an EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey, which is a joint coordination mechanism that provides modest financial and other support to more than 1.8 million refugees.
Good to learn something new every day.
We obviously need a few more in Central Europe
Anywhere but the UK?
It's an even more hazardous journey to get to the UK, so if you can set something up in Central or Northern France, to process the applications, then that would be far better imo
....but as you say, we need to cut the amount of visas we award in the first place
Why do so many migrants want to come to the UK, as opposed to staying in the European country they first land in ?
I think we are way too soft and should adopt a similar policy to Australia, which after all is an island like ourselves
Australia is the only country that mandates immigration detention for all “unlawful” arrivals, including those seeking protection as refugees. Australia has had one of the most punitive policies on forced migration in the world, including controls beyond the border; the current U.S. practice of caging “illegal” migrants comes close. But a key distinction is that Australia effectively punishes those who flee to the country for protection.
The harsh conditions in detention to which “unlawful” refugees are subjected have been touted by successive Australian governments as a crucial plank of its border security policy. Widespread public support for a punitive detention regime has been driven by a dominant perception since the 1980s that those arriving by boat are either “bogus” refugees – attempting “easy” entry into Australia for economic gain – or that they constitute a security threat. These perceptions are discounted by the reality that most applications for refugee status by “boat arrivals” are approved, with a very high percentage of successful appeals against adverse decisions. Yet there is persistent evidence of ongoing public support for tough border protection coupled with minimal concern about Australia’s reputational damage as a signatory to the Refugee Convention. Unfortunately these views are typically based on misperceptions about refugee movement, fuelled by negative media and government campaigns.
Asylum seekers can only apply for asylum after arriving in the UK. There are no legal routes.
I didn't actually know this....... so there obviously should be.
Maybe a Central Europe, or United Nations Central Areas, where refugees and Asylum Seekers can go to, and apply for Asylum to save then having to take on such hazardous journeys to try and get to the UK
The EU have a deal with Turkey.
What is the EU doing to help refugees in Turkey? The 2016 deal promised the creation of an EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey, which is a joint coordination mechanism that provides modest financial and other support to more than 1.8 million refugees.
Good to learn something new every day.
We obviously need a few more in Central Europe
Anywhere but the UK?
It's an even more hazardous journey to get to the UK, so if you can set something up in Central or Northern France, to process the applications, then that would be far better imo
....but as you say, we need to cut the amount of visas we award in the first place
As I suggested in the first place you are conflating different things. What on earth would setting anything up in France do? The people that gather in and around Calais, live in camps, and their intention is to reach the UK. This is the only way that they can apply for asylum. Much is made of question of whether they are asylum seekers or not. As we accept over 80% of the applications, it is safe to assume that the vast majority are. Dont forget that the asylum seekers numbered 35,000 not the 1.1 million.
Students that have been granted visas arrive here to study. They are ripped off by our universities, who sting them for massive fees, in comparison to UK students. Most of them leave when their education is complete. Whilst here they contribute to the economy via their university fees, renting accommodation, buying food etc. Many of them also fill part time lowly paid jobs that Brits dont want. Many of them will have arranged their accommodation prior to arrival. Some through the university that they are attending, which is not available to the general public, others through the private rental sector. There has been some criticism over some of them bringing family members. This could easily be remedied by amending the terms and conditions of the visas. Reducing the numbers will merely be a loss to our economy. They contribute far more than those that merely claim benefits.
Those that are arriving on work visas presumably have a job already arranged. Have probably secured accommodation, and are ready to contribute to our economy. Many will have family connections. I think it would be silly to assume that a family of four would arrive from say India, and plan to sleep on the street, while they look for a job, and try to find a house to rent.
We have experienced some events that have increased the numbers over the last couple of years, which you may not expect to be repeated any time soon. Syria. Germany took over a million Syrians, we didnt. Hong Kong. We offered over 3 million the opportunity to apply for British Citizenship, although only a relatively small number have taken advantage of this offer. Afghanistan. We left a lot of people over there that we promised to look after. Ukraine. We would have many more from Ukraine, had the government been more efficient in processing their visas.
Comments
There are no legal routes.
According to the article you posted over 700,000 people arrived on visas, and 35,000 on small boats.
Surely the easy remedy for immigration, based on those figures, would be for the government to issue less visas.
Simple.
The increase in the number of student visas issued has come in for some criticism.
Wouldnt you expect an increase in numbers based on the previous year, when there was a pandemic on?
A reduction in student visas could well cause more problems for businesses as they fill many low paid job vacancies.
Foreign students are charged much higher university fees than UK students.
This article is more than 2 years old
PM accused of misleading voters and not understanding value of non-high-skilled jobs
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/08/boris-johnson-lying-over-immigration-jonathan-ashworth
Australia's immigration detention system is cruel and damaging …
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/28/our-i…
28/10/2019 · This article is more than 3 years old Australia's immigration detention system is cruel and damaging by its very nature Jonathon Hunyor …
Author: Jonathon Hunyor
Estimated Reading Time: 5 mins
What is Australia's criticised offshore asylum system and …
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-04-14/whats-australias-offshore-asylum...
14/04/2022 · Australia has been criticised across the spectrum, from United Nations bodies to immigration experts and activists. International charity Doctors Without Borders reported on …
Australia asylum: Why is it controversial?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-28189608
If we are only building around 200,000 new homes each year and taking in 500,000 migrants, are we hoping that there are at least families of 3 in every case? We already have a severe shortage of housing, particularly affordable homes in this country, and taking in this many extra people can only make the situation worse, hence the reason to have to house not only Asylum Seekers, but British families who have been evicted (sometimes through no fault of their own), in Hotels and B+B's.
Having also lived in an area of Sheffield in the 90's where refugees were housed fairly nearby, the massive increase in crime (burglaries, shoplifting, and car break-ins) in that area was found to be down to these refugees.
I also remember an area between Vilamoura and Quateria on the Algarve, where there were lots of refugees living in temporary huts and various types of 'buildings' (known as Soweto) which got raided by the Portuguese Police, and over half a million pounds worth of stolen goods were recovered
Maybe a Central Europe, or United Nations Central Areas, where refugees and Asylum Seekers can go to, and apply for Asylum to save then having to take on such hazardous journeys to try and get to the UK
Then wonder why there are so many small boats arriving.
The asylum seekers only represent a very small percentage of the number of arrivals quoted in the first article you posted.
Thirty five thousand out of 1.1 million.
So around 3% of the total.
Those that are concerned should probably worry about the 97% rather than the 3%.
This article only seems to itemise just over 700,000.
All of whom have arrived on visas.
The Tories have been talking about a net migration target of 100,000 since David Cameron.
Hows that going then?
If the question was why cant we restrict net migration to 100,000?
Then the answer is surely that we issued 1.1 million visas.
Not rocket science.
If you want less immigration, then issue less visas.
I think that there is a fairly simple solution to the boats as well.
You make the crossing illegal, and return them all to France.
This would completely stop the crossings fairly quickly.
You would also have to introduce a legal route, and we have to take out fair share, of genuine asylum seekers.
Anyone that is unemployed and lives in this country could get a job if they wanted to.
There are always jobs in agriculture, care homes, behind bars, and in kitchens etc.
We currently have somewhere around 1.2 million vacancies.
So how could you not get a job.
The reason why jobs in these sectors were filled by Eastern Europeans, is because Brits didnt want them.
Realistically this is unlikely to change anytime soon.
Do you that the half a million that left were also living on the street?
Or do you think that the new arrivals rent some of the accommodation vacated by those that left?
Do you think that those on student visas occupy the accommodation vacated by the previous bunch of students.
How many people die every year?
Some jobs provide accommodation.
Like the NHS who employ many nurses from abroad, and provide them with accommodation.
What were the Sheffield crime figures, and how did they compare with other areas?
Where did you get the Soweto crime figures from?
People getting evicted has nothing to do with immigration.
What is the EU doing to help refugees in Turkey?
The 2016 deal promised the creation of an EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey, which is a joint coordination mechanism that provides modest financial and other support to more than 1.8 million refugees.
We obviously need a few more in Central Europe
People who die every Year are replaced by younger people leaving home and looking for housing.
I don't have the actual figures from 30 years ago in Sheffield, but my girlfriend at the time, worked for South Yorkshire Police, and she told me that the spike in Crime was down to the Somalian refugees who were housed on the edge of Sheffield City Centre
I found out about the Police raid on 'Soweto' as it was known, and the amount of stolen property they found, from the Manager of what was the Dom Pedro Hotel, Vilamoura, which overlooked it. I was running a golf holiday for Sovereign Golf at the time
....but as you say, we need to cut the amount of visas we award in the first place
What on earth would setting anything up in France do?
The people that gather in and around Calais, live in camps, and their intention is to reach the UK.
This is the only way that they can apply for asylum.
Much is made of question of whether they are asylum seekers or not.
As we accept over 80% of the applications, it is safe to assume that the vast majority are.
Dont forget that the asylum seekers numbered 35,000 not the 1.1 million.
Students that have been granted visas arrive here to study.
They are ripped off by our universities, who sting them for massive fees, in comparison to UK students.
Most of them leave when their education is complete.
Whilst here they contribute to the economy via their university fees, renting accommodation, buying food etc.
Many of them also fill part time lowly paid jobs that Brits dont want.
Many of them will have arranged their accommodation prior to arrival.
Some through the university that they are attending, which is not available to the general public, others through the private rental sector.
There has been some criticism over some of them bringing family members.
This could easily be remedied by amending the terms and conditions of the visas.
Reducing the numbers will merely be a loss to our economy.
They contribute far more than those that merely claim benefits.
Those that are arriving on work visas presumably have a job already arranged.
Have probably secured accommodation, and are ready to contribute to our economy.
Many will have family connections.
I think it would be silly to assume that a family of four would arrive from say India, and plan to sleep on the street, while they look for a job, and try to find a house to rent.
We have experienced some events that have increased the numbers over the last couple of years, which you may not expect to be repeated any time soon.
Syria.
Germany took over a million Syrians, we didnt.
Hong Kong.
We offered over 3 million the opportunity to apply for British Citizenship, although only a relatively small number have taken advantage of this offer.
Afghanistan.
We left a lot of people over there that we promised to look after.
Ukraine.
We would have many more from Ukraine, had the government been more efficient in processing their visas.