Sunak announces new legislation to make cross-channel migration illegal

[UndercoverElephant]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63959729

Nearly all the Albanians in the UK are going to be sent back home and new legislation to be passed in the new year to make automatically reject asylum applications from anybody who "arrived illegally". If true, this is extremely good news and it will be very interesting to see how Labour responds. Opposing this legislation would be electorally very damaging, and Starmer surely knows that. I wonder if he will instruct Labour MPs to abstain.

[RevdTess]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63959729

Nearly all the Albanians in the UK are going to be sent back home and new legislation to be passed in the new year to make automatically reject asylum applications from anybody who "arrived illegally". If true, this is extremely good news and it will be very interesting to see how Labour responds. Opposing this legislation would be electorally very damaging, and Starmer surely knows that. I wonder if he will instruct Labour MPs to abstain.

How does one actually arrive legally to make an asylum claim? Do you have to claim to be coming on holiday and then make a claim when you arrive 'legally' ? I've never really understood how this works, though I heard many say that the reason there are so many small-boat crossings is because 'legal' ways of entering the country have been shut since Brexit. I can't say I really understand how this works.

[Vortex2]

It's all a bit late.

You can hardly hear English spoken in my local town as it is.

Who is going to check all the residents' papers and chuck out the illegals?

[clv101]

Other than specific routes for Ukrainians, Hong Kong and a few others, I don't think there are government recognised safe routes for asylum seekers - which is by design, not accident.

[UndercoverElephant]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63959729

Nearly all the Albanians in the UK are going to be sent back home and new legislation to be passed in the new year to make automatically reject asylum applications from anybody who "arrived illegally". If true, this is extremely good news and it will be very interesting to see how Labour responds. Opposing this legislation would be electorally very damaging, and Starmer surely knows that. I wonder if he will instruct Labour MPs to abstain.

How does one actually arrive legally to make an asylum claim?

By boat or plane, presumably.

Do you have to claim to be coming on holiday and then make a claim when you arrive 'legally' ? I've never really understood how this works, though I heard many say that the reason there are so many small-boat crossings is because 'legal' ways of entering the country have been shut since Brexit. I can't say I really understand how this works.

You don't have to claim to be coming on holiday, no. But you do need to be able to afford to get here by boat or plane, and have the necessary paperwork to make that journey, which the cross-channel migrants presumably do not have.

It is not supposed to be easy. The truth is that the very few people should be arriving in the UK to claim asylum. Asylum seekers have a right to safety, but no right to choose which country to live in. They are supposed to apply for asylum in the first safe country they reach, which means absolutely nobody should be coming here from France. The truth is that they don't just want to get out of where-ever it is they came from, but they want to come specifically to the UK. This is an abuse of the asylum system as it was set up in international law. It should have been ended a long time ago.

[UndercoverElephant]

It's all a bit late.

You can hardly hear English spoken in my local town as it is.

Who is going to check all the residents' papers and chuck out the illegals?

Anyone arriving by boat will be deemed illegal. Problem solved.

[UndercoverElephant]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/ris ... migration/

The five-point plan unveiled by Sunak for addressing the issue of the Channel boats in the short-term will garner most of the headlines, but it is small beer compared to his most significant announcement.

Electoral salvation for the Tories won’t come via a new ‘unified small boats operational command’, a doubling of immigration enforcement raids, 10,000 new non-hotel accommodation places, faster processing of claims or even a fancy new deal with Albania. These are all incremental measures that will, at best, help at the margins.

Were this list of intended eye-catching initiatives all that Sunak had to offer then his statement would be worthy of the cynicism Keir Starmer showed – especially given all the previous ineffective gimmicks announced when Boris Johnson and Priti Patel were running things.

But the big bang element of the Prime Minister’s statement came in its second half: the promise of new legislation early next year that will, in effect, bring about the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from a global asylum system that he explicitly – and correctly – branded ‘obsolete’.

Very muted response to this so far, apart from the inevitable and depressing condemnation from Caroline Lucas. This should be a massive international story. It is the beginning of the end for not just the UK's migration problem, but the whole existing global system.

[Catweazle]

I wonder if the French police will stop turning a blind eye now that the traffickers have effectively murdered people by sending them out in toy boats in this weather.

[mr brightside]

Much too little much too late. This will be a nice upturn in business for the criminals and forgers who make a living out of legitimising illegals, it won't be long before it gets really hard to get rid of anyone. They should have stopped them coming in in the first instance, it's like a possession is nine tenths of the law situation.

[UndercoverElephant]

Much too little much too late. This will be a nice upturn in business for the criminals and forgers who make a living out of legitimising illegals, it won't be long before it gets really hard to get rid of anyone. They should have stopped them coming in in the first instance, it's like a possession is nine tenths of the law situation.

We can't get rid of large number of people who are already here and should not have been allowed to stay -- or have "disappeared" into an entirely black market existence. But it looks to me like a combination of today's high court ruling and new legislation next year means that the situation is going to change significantly going forwards. Sunak has staked his credibility on it. Clearly it isn't about ecological sustainability (which it ought to be). It's about the financial burden, which almost everybody can now see is also unsustainable. Everybody apart from Caroline Lucas, of course.

[RevdTess]

It's about the financial burden, which almost everybody can now see is also unsustainable. Everybody apart from Caroline Lucas, of course.

There's always money for things if the government want there to be. It's a matter of priorities: who do we have compassion for, and who do we not. I'm not saying a bunch of young Albanian men are top of my list. That's probably nurses. But apparently we can't afford them either.

Still, I hate the way that it's apparently not enough simply to make policy any more. You have to also demonise any group you want to feel as unwelcome and selfish as possible. The govt love hating unions of course, but they're struggling to paint the nurses as wicked and selfish in quite the same way as they can with the RMT.

Of course I'm a huge fan of Caroline Lucas - her and Mhairi Black are my favourite MPs. I'm a lefty vicar after all.

[UndercoverElephant]

It's about the financial burden, which almost everybody can now see is also unsustainable. Everybody apart from Caroline Lucas, of course.

There's always money for things if the government want there to be. It's a matter of priorities: who do we have compassion for, and who do we not. I'm not saying a bunch of young Albanian men are top of my list. That's probably nurses. But apparently we can't afford them either.

But that's just exactly the point. If you are trying to argue that there is so little money left that we cannot provide nurses with a pay rise that reflects inflation then how can we justify not ending the flow of migrants?

[Vortex2]

It's already all over.

Immigration/immigrant will totally change the UK within a decade or two.

We have already lost the major cities.

Those who what to continue the white Anglo-Saxon path will either have to cantonize the country .. or move to Hungary or similar.

Maybe that's simply the way social evolution works.

It's probably possible to simulate/model the development of UK society .. and the results are unlikely to be pretty ...

[PS_RalphW]

Anglo Saxon. Why not stop at the Roman British, or the celts, the beaker people or even the neolithics? Maybe we reject the vikings and the Normans and the Jews and the Scots and the multiple royal houses we have imported, Not to mention the refugees from the Russian pogroms or the two world wars. There is no genetic test that says who is Anglo Saxon and there is no one in this country who does not have immigrant blood in them. We are all 100% immigrants , genetically speaking.

[BritDownUnder]

I seem to remember there was a council of a suburb in California that went bust as 98% of the population were illegal immigrants who did not want to pay taxes for some reason or other.

It doesn't look good for the UK. I didn't have the money to buy a place in the South West or Wales so I decided to leave and give myself another 30 years of relative peace. A total loss of control of borders and mass immigration would be the most serious issue if it were not for the resource and energy shortages and all the other precursors of collapse. I often wonder how Australia will cope and what will be done with literally millions of people arriving on overcrowded ships and planes when the collapse really starts.