Starmer's vision quest

[PurplePenguin]

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.)

You're assuming it won't apply to someone who has been here for 4.5 years when the legislation comes in?

 

[PurplePenguin]

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.

This also reflects the general view of most posters who think it is easily solvable with faster processing, offshore processing and big love.

It's actually not simple.

 

[First Aspect]

You're assuming it won't apply to someone who has been here for 4.5 years when the legislation comes in?

Mmm, not sure anyone will have thought about transitional provisions just yet.

It isn't normal for new legislation to be restrospdctvie though so my best guess is not.

 

[All uphill]

I'm glad the UK offers asylum to people who are at risk.

I'm pleased that the UK has immigrants who boost our economy (and pay my pension).

I am concerned about the children of asylum seekers who have spent years in this country and the consequences for them of being 'returned' to a country they may not remember.

I am concerned about people arriving here who do not work, and are not helped, to integrate.

Solutions? As others have said, speed up processing of asylum seekers, require purely economic migrants to support themselves or return, forget about returning anyone who has been here for five years or more.

 

[Pross]

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.

I did say those who didn't already have settled status. To be honest, in many cases it would be self-selecting as people will often return to their homeland themselves if they feel safe although those from less economically developed countries are possibly less likely to return voluntarily.

 

[First Aspect]

I'm glad the UK offers asylum to people who are at risk.

I'm pleased that the UK has immigrants who boost our economy (and pay my pension).

I am concerned about the children of asylum seekers who have spent years in this country and the consequences for them of being 'returned' to a country they may not remember.

I am concerned about people arriving here who do not work, and are not helped, to integrate.

Solutions? As others have said, speed up processing of asylum seekers, require purely economic migrants to support themselves or return, forget about returning anyone who has been here for five years or more.

The actual impact of these policies on those who would have previously had permanent leave to remain will depend on the details of how their applications for permanent residence via other forms of visa will be dealt with. Which I guarantee hasn't been assessed yet. It isn't necessarily a terrible policy, but I do think it is a headline grabbing one that won't make much difference overall.

Changes in the application of the ECHR have more potential to be effective (although you have to ignore all the white noise about chicken nuggets this morning to get a sense of what that might be).

 

[PurplePenguin]

Mmm, not sure anyone will have thought about transitional provisions just yet.

It isn't normal for new legislation to be restrospdctvie though so my best guess is not.

I would expect new rules for indefinite leave to remain to apply to all new applications i.e. any application currently being processed will be under the old rules, but anything after a certain date will be under the new rules. On that basis it would have an impact quite quickly.

 

[icowden]

This also reflects the general view of most posters who think it is easily solvable with faster processing, offshore processing and big love.
It's actually not simple.

Interestingly Zach Polanski for the Greens is the first leader to bring up policy that might actually work. It involves letting people work while their claim is being processed and speeding up processing...

Genius!

 

[First Aspect]

I would expect new rules for indefinite leave to remain to apply to all new applications i.e. any application currently being processed will be under the old rules, but anything after a certain date will be under the new rules. On that basis it would have an impact quite quickly.

It would have an impact in about 5 years, compared to the current system.

Or are you talking about whether those people decide not to put down roots here in the same way in the first place?

I don't know. In practice I don't think it will make much difference in the short to medium term, but I can't possibly empathise with someone who has moved here as an asylum seeker so it is best to say I don't know.

The ante is certainly raised on the Home Office to not declare unsafe counties safe I suppose. I can see an initial consequence being over caution.

I could also see government interference down the line, in the same way that courts are now being pressured to not be impartial.

 

[Psamathe]

This also reflects the general view of most posters who think it is easily solvable with faster processing, offshore processing and big love.

It's actually not simple.

Depends on what is trying to be solved.
Could be that UK is being told it has too many migrants (the vast majority of which are given visas and not asylum seekers)
Could be that people are getting into dangerous little boats and risking their lives crossing.

What is trying to be solved. Government are continually conflating legal migration with asylum seeking.

 

[First Aspect]

Interestingly Zach Polanski for the Greens is the first leader to bring up policy that might actually work. It involves letting people work while their claim is being processed and speeding up processing...

Genius!

He's not the first to suggest this. But it's not a stand alone policy is it. How do you keep track of people who may or may not be granted asylum, who have dispersed into the workforce?

Would they pay tax? How would they pay tax? Would they get NINs? And if they pay tax do they acrue benefits?

What's the genius Polanski's policy on the actual practicalities?

 

[Psamathe]

Interestingly Zach Polanski for the Greens is the first leader to bring up policy that might actually work. It involves letting people work while their claim is being processed and speeding up processing...

Genius!

You mean like most of the EU already does and has been doing for some time (some immediately on applying for asylum, others after few months from asylum claim submitted).

 

[icowden]

He's not the first to suggest this. But it's not a stand alone policy is it. How do you keep track of people who may or may not be granted asylum, who have dispersed into the workforce?

Would they pay tax? How would they pay tax? Would they get NINs? And if they pay tax do they acrue benefits?

The whole point is that they pay tax and reduce the cost of feeding and housing people waiting for claims to be processed. Most, if not all, asylum seekers want to work. If they are paying tax you know exactly where they are. I would presume that they would accrue benefits.

https://migration.greenparty.org.uk/right-to-work-for-people-seeking-asylum/

 

[First Aspect]

Depends on what is trying to be solved.
Could be that UK is being told it has too many migrants (the vast majority of which are given visas and not asylum seekers)
Could be that people are getting into dangerous little boats and risking their lives crossing.

What is trying to be solved. Government are continually conflating legal migration with asylum seeking.

With respect to cross channel migrants the challenge is telling the difference, because I assume the overwhelming majority claim asylum. We have gone from a general public presumption "yes" that this group of people are genuine asylum seekers, to a general presumption "no", as their numbers have grown.

If I just looked up the correct statistics, about 50% of asylum claims are successful.

 

[PurplePenguin]

It would have an impact in about 5 years, compared to the current system.

Or are you talking about whether those people decide not to put down roots here in the same way in the first place?

I don't know. In practice I don't think it will make much difference in the short to medium term, but I can't possibly empathise with someone who has moved here as an asylum seeker so it is best to say I don't know.

The ante is certainly raised on the Home Office to not declare unsafe counties safe I suppose. I can see an initial consequence being over caution.

I could also see government interference down the line, in the same way that courts are now being pressured to not be impartial.

I can only repeat what I said, if someone's status is currently that of a refugee, it is highly likely that when they apply for indefinite leave to remain, they would be subject to rules in force at that point in time. Therefore, it would have an immediate impact on those with refugee status. Whether or not being eligible for ILR has much impact on them is another matter.