Starmer's vision quest

[Pross]

Are the systems there to “screen” arrivals?

How do you propose doing that? Someone can arrive with no criminal record but still committ an offence whilst here and I don't criminal record checks from countries in the midst of war or insurrection are pretty difficult to obtain. Of course, if we could go back to putting decent procedures in place to deal with asylum applications prior to arrival it would make it a lot easier to deal with those who are known criminals prior to them getting to the UK (or kicking them out if they don't arrive through those channels). I'm still bemused why more talk isn't around going back to that process.

 

[briantrumpet]

I'm still bemused why more talk isn't around going back to that process.

Because the press have whipped up a storm, and the politicians think there are more votes in being mean to people with brown skin, rather than putting sensible and humane measures back in place.

 

[Pross]

No. Who decides if a country is safe? What if a volatile country stabilises and then civil war breaks out a year later? There are so many variables as to make it nigh on impossible to come up with a satisfactory set of criteria to return a person. If you grant someone refugee status it should be accepted as permanent, not conditional (this is just my opinion obviously).

Not sure I agree with that. If we decide they are unsafe then surely we can also determine them as safe and return anyone who doesn't have settled status e.g. I don't think it would have been unreasonable to return Polish or East German asylum seekers post 1990 or Ukrainians if Russia stop the war and retreat. Some countries remain unstable and I would suggest Syria is still an example of that but many that have had problems have gone on to become stable democracies. The last government was even using one of them as the safe haven to send asylum seekers!

 

[Xipe Totec]

The echr has been weaponised to allow every scumbag to stay even after committing horrific crimes.

The UK needs to withdraw from ECHR

Interestingly, I find myself highly supportive of you having no human rights. That almost seems like natural selection.

 

[Psamathe]

but Mahmood's knee-jerk and apparently gleeful adoption of Reform's xenophobic policies in reaction to transitory polling, without recognising and championing the essential contributions that migrants overall make to the UK, is the wrong way to have a sensible discussion.

I agree. It's the basic underlying message Labour are sending "we don't want you, you are draining resources, we will do less than minimum, we will ignore your plight, basically go away please and if you won't then expect worse than nothing".

And our Government sending such messages "normalises" such views presenting them as socially acceptable and encouraging many to dehumanise people in a desperate situation.

Keep telling everybody how immigration is "out of control" and that the "system is broken", etc. and people believe it. Maybe tell people how crucial these migrants are to our economy, our NHS, our care sector, etc. stop calling them "illegals" and it won't be a problem.

Keep conflating migration with asylum and keep telling everybody how disastrous it is for the UK, how expensive it is, etc. keep talking about sending people home and it deflects from the really challenges Labour are failing to address.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

Not sure I agree with that. If we decide they are unsafe then surely we can also determine them as safe and return anyone who doesn't have settled status e.g. I don't think it would have been unreasonable to return Polish or East German asylum seekers post 1990 or Ukrainians if Russia stop the war and retreat. Some countries remain unstable and I would suggest Syria is still an example of that but many that have had problems have gone on to become stable democracies. The last government was even using one of them as the safe haven to send asylum seekers!

That's a fair point. I would agree in cases like Ukraine or where any country has been invaded, once a war has ended there is definite scope for people to return home who did not have settled status. My worry would be if this started to be extended across all refugees. Any such policy would likely have to be a very broad and not particularly nuanced set of conditions which I think in practice would disadvantage a lot of people.

 

[First Aspect]

Because the press have whipped up a storm, and the politicians think there are more votes in being mean to people with brown skin, rather than putting sensible and humane measures back in place.

This is true, but the flip side is that unfortunately it does seem to reflect current public sentiment. You could argue that a sensible government should rise above something that is popular but morally incorrect.

You could also argue that this sort of public sentiment is widespread across Europe and that unless the traditionally more moderate parties do enough to acknowledge it and neuter the key selling point of the populist right, we will all end up not only with populist right wing immigration policy, but all of the rest of the half thought through batschit crazy populist right wing policy.

 

[BoldonLad]

No, mostly because the Tories broke the system either by accident or design.

View attachment 11099

And, after 14 months, nothing meaningful? THAT is why Reform is rampant. Remember, I am pro immigrant, my daughter-in-law is an immigrant, my two of my grandchildren are, shall we say “well sun tanned”.

 

[Pblakeney]

Not sure I agree with that. If we decide they are unsafe then surely we can also determine them as safe and return anyone who doesn't have settled status e.g. I don't think it would have been unreasonable to return Polish or East German asylum seekers post 1990 or Ukrainians if Russia stop the war and retreat. Some countries remain unstable and I would suggest Syria is still an example of that but many that have had problems have gone on to become stable democracies. The last government was even using one of them as the safe haven to send asylum seekers!

That is a fair point, but how long does it take to determine that a country is stable before it is safe? 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 years?

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1989995244642021800?t=SPypp7UoWnufzZ23fImLOw&s=19

 

[Pblakeney]

And, after 14 months, nothing meaningful? THAT is why Reform is rampant. Remember, I am pro immigrant, my daughter-in-law is an immigrant, my two of my grandchildren are, shall we say “well sun tanned”.

In simple terms, it is a complicated problem without an easy solution. A meaningful solution will take years.
Anyone thinking that Reform will solve the problem is a deluded fool.

 

[First Aspect]

In simple terms, it is a complicated problem without an easy solution. A meaningful solution will take years.
Anyone thinking that Reform will solve the problem is a deluded fool.

All you need to do is eject 600,000 people, as Nigel has said.

He hasn't said how, but I think a lottery to remove 1% of the UK population would be fairest.

He also hasn't said where to, but we really just need people to take their own personal responsibility to find new places to live.

 

[Psamathe]

Not sure I agree with that. If we decide they are unsafe then surely we can also determine them as safe and return anyone who doesn't have settled status e.g. I don't think it would have been unreasonable to return Polish or East German asylum seekers post 1990 or Ukrainians if Russia stop the war and retreat. Some countries remain unstable and I would suggest Syria is still an example of that but many that have had problems have gone on to become stable democracies. The last government was even using one of them as the safe haven to send asylum seekers!

Complication can come in the cases of countries that are subject to instability. Not a problem until you have a Government that has a stated strong push to "get rid of these people" where they will be quick to declare a country safe only for the "newly approved" regime to be overthrown 1 week after coming to power and receiving all the refugees thrown out by a UK Government seeking some votes.

Add that settled people with jobs, paying tax, etc. are a boost to our economy.

 

[First Aspect]

The change from indefinite leave to remain in 5 years to 10 or 20 doesn't actually make any difference for 5 to 10 years, does it?

It is a policy change with absolutely no consequence for the current government. (Other than to supposedly deter people who don't know about it.)

 

[Psamathe]

I'm surprised the public are not getting a bit suspicious about all these failed answers we keep getting from Labour. Initially they declared that "smashing the Gangs" was the way to "Stop the Boats". Didn't work. Next we have a "One in One Out" deal with France to "Stop the Boats" which didn't work. Then we have ID cards for the entire population (costing a fortune the just don't have) which didn't work.

So now we have yet another answer. Can we have any confidence that nth attempt is going to be any better?

But one thing it will do is to further increase public resentment to those seeking our aid, to further dehumanise people in desperate need.