Migrant watch (merged topic)

[BritDownUnder]

Continuing from the electricity company thread Australia managed to stop the illegal boat arrivals pretty much as soon as a party (Liberals) got elected that did not consider illegal arrivals to be potential future voters. They did this by giving anybody claiming asylum after entering Australia illegally "temporary protection visas" not permanent residency. This prevents the holders from bringing in further family members, accessing any benefits and claiming permanent residency.

Really it is a willpower thing. The UK is not prepared to show some willpower in preventing illegal immigration while Australia generally is.

To quote John Howard...

we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.

Australia has quite a large asylum intake and takes people from various places such as Burundi, South Sudan, Myanmar, Latin America, I have even met a Czech and a Bosnian refugee as well as the Middle East rather than these self funded 'boat people' arrivals.

Not always been a success as the overseas processing in Nauru and Papua New Guinea has been considered a failure as the centres are being closed and people require complex medical treatment in Australia.

From what I understand, any illegal boat arrivals from Indonesia are transferred into a lifeboat, presumably more seaworthy than the boat they chartered to make the journey to Australia, then towed back to and cut adrift just outside Indonesian territorial waters, where tidal currents will carry them back to shore in Indonesia.

[kenneal - lagger]

I'm quite sure that the government don't really want to stop the immigration as it bolsters economic growth. All the chat about stopping immigration is for show and blaming it on the French and their lack of action is just a convenient cover. Keeping it difficult to get into the country stops the flow getting too big so that helps the government with their northern vote while acting as a convenient control mechanism.

Labour side with the migrants because they too want them to keep economic growth going, it chimes with the thoughts of their metropolitan, middle class vote and it is a convenient stick to beat the government with. Both parties are hypocritical on immigration.

There was an interesting piece in the Grauniad today saying that all the talk about migrant gangs is also political blather as many of the migrants are buying the boats themselves quite legally as a group and sailing themselves over. All the talk of criminal people smuggling gangs is just a cover to make the government's stance look better.

[adam2]

I doubt that we will get significant cooperation from France. France probably thinks that they have enough trouble with the largely islamic migrants that they already have, and certainly don't want any more. Though obviously they will not put it as bluntly as that. Best to unofficially encourage them to move on to England.

And of course most of the migrants want to come to the UK for the better benefits.

As has already been said, the crossing is not that hard, nor that dangerous, and migrants are well able to purchase a cheap boat and arrange it themselves. All the talk of "people smuggling" and of "criminal gangs" is PC nonsense to avoid any criticism of the actual migrants.

If this migration is be discouraged, we need to reduce the pull factors that make the UK so much more attractive than the EU.

[clv101]

If this migration is be discouraged, we need to reduce the pull factors that make the UK so much more attractive than the EU.

The vast majority do stay in EU. A small proportion come to UK, mostly due to friends & family connections, or simply because English is the only European language they speak.

The UK takes a disproportionately small number of asylum seekers entering Europe... even though UK foreign policy over recent decades and UK carbon emissions over last couple of centuries have played a disproportionately large role in displacing people.

[kenneal - lagger]

We have a singularly unsustainable lifestyle in the UK at the moment with a population well in excess of the food produced to sustain it so we should be paying other countries with a better population/land area ratio to look after our share of migrants.

[Catweazle]

a population well in excess of the food produced to sustain it

Companies are buying up farmland to plant trees as part of their move towards carbon neutrality. Shooting ourselves in the belly ?

[BritDownUnder]

If this migration is be discouraged, we need to reduce the pull factors that make the UK so much more attractive than the EU.

The vast majority do stay in EU. A small proportion come to UK, mostly due to friends & family connections, or simply because English is the only European language they speak.

The UK takes a disproportionately small number of asylum seekers entering Europe... even though UK foreign policy over recent decades and UK carbon emissions over last couple of centuries have played a disproportionately large role in displacing people.

According to the statistica website the UK is 5% of total global cumulative emissions. Behind The USA, China, Russia/Soviet Union and Germany. Per capital is probably first. Russia and China to my knowledge accept no refugees.

The displacement of people I can agree more on although the UK acted as a junior partner with others. Also all under Labour governments. Maybe Tony Blair should be sent to Iraq to stand trial as a war criminal. I don’t think UK foreign policy has encouraged countries to increase their populations beyond sustainable means, unless the allure of free UK benefits encourages excessive Islamic fecundity.

[UndercoverElephant]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64848101

Anyone arriving in the UK on a small boat will be prevented from claiming asylum, under new laws expected to be announced next week.

Ministers will have a duty to "detain and swiftly remove" anyone who comes to the UK through that route, said Home Secretary Suella Braverman.

The prime minister has already said that "stopping the boats" is one of his five priorities.

The British Red Cross charity called the plans "extremely concerning".

Ms Braverman is expected to introduce the new legislation on Tuesday.

Looks like they are actually going to do this. Should have done it 5 years ago.

[adam2]

I will be very surprised if significant numbers are actually removed to Rwanda.
I expect some years of reviews, appeals, legal arguments, and judicial reviews before significant numbers are in fact removed.

[clv101]

Rwanda is a joke, just noise to appeal to their base. There is ~zero chance of any more than a token few dozen being deported there before the next election and ~zero chance a new Labour government will continue with it.

[UndercoverElephant]

I will be very surprised if significant numbers are actually removed to Rwanda.
I expect some years of reviews, appeals, legal arguments, and judicial reviews before significant numbers are in fact removed.

It is the role of the judiciary to interpret laws passed by parliament, not to rewrite or review those laws. If parliament passes a clear enough law then significant numbers will be removed. It won't take that many before the boats stop. That is the key here -- the moment it looks like the law won't work, then it won't work. So it must work.

I think we'll get an answer to this question sooner rather than later. Well before the next general election.

[UndercoverElephant]

There is ~zero chance of any more than a token few dozen being deported there before the next election and ~zero chance a new Labour government will continue with it.

I am not so sure. I am waiting to see what actually happens before deciding on what that chance is, but I'd say there is a non-negligible chance that large numbers will be deported before the next election, and if that happens then it will become a potentially election-losing issue for Labour. If Labour were to put in their manifesto that they will reverse a successful tory law to stop the boats then Labour will lose that election. Which is exactly why the tories are going to try to make sure it succeeds. If you're right, and it fails, then Labour's majority will increase.

If at the next election we have an operational law to stop the boats, and Labour pledges to reverse it, then I will vote tory for the first time in my life. It's that important.

[Vortex2]

It's all a bit late .. just take a walk in your nearest town ...

[PS_RalphW]

I don’t think the Tories want this to become accepted policy too quickly. The longer the arguments go on, the more they can use this as a whip to attack the liberals and lefties who are stopping them getting the job done. It is a distraction from just how broken the economy is, and how deeply unequal society has become.

[UndercoverElephant]

It is a distraction from just how broken the economy is, and how deeply unequal society has become.

It is all part of the same thing. What are your X and Y? What is the "it" and what is the "distraction"?