A poll, because everyone knows the issue:
What should the govermment do about small boats
- Provide more legal routes of access so that genuine asylum seekers can arrive without risking their lives (70%, 418 Votes)
- Rejoin the EU so that the Dublin regulation can be used to require asylum seekers to apply in the first safe country they get to (12%, 70 Votes)
- Recruit many more people to appraise asylum applications to cut waiting times and save hotel costs (11%, 64 Votes)
- I am abstaining but show me the answers anyway (4%, 23 Votes)
- Ban those trying to use them, as it is trying to do (2%, 11 Votes)
- None of the above (1%, 6 Votes)
- Ask Rwanda to accept more people (0%, 1 Votes)
Total Voters: 593
Loading ...
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Good question, but I would have liked to be able to tick at least two boxes.
Sunak was right about one thing: the problem cannot be solved by a single measure. Providing more legal routes is (for me, though apparently not for him?) primordial. But it will not always be possible for those in the most difficult circumstances to access them, so other measures are needed to deal more humanely and speedily with those who, inevitably, will continue to put themselves at risk and arrive by routes deemed illegal.
My mistake in nit allowing multiple answers. I was in a hurry
I wanted to put –
Recruit many more people to appraise asylum applications
as well as –
Provide more legal routes of access
Both are needed. Those two would resolve the issue. But there is the problem, there would no longer be a wedge issue to ramp up indignation. The whole framing of the issue makes those wanting to come here bad people so there is nothing on the conscience of those wanting an excuse not to help others. That people who are the children of immigrants should be doing this is beyond my mental grasp.
English became a global language because of the Empire, so a lot of the people want to come here because they already speak the language and probably know there are many from their country already settled.
Lesson learned
But you have now made your point
It is a complex problem and I’m not convinced that giving a single answer to a multiple-choice survey will tell us very much. We need to do several things at the same time.
Firstly, we need to stop demonising desperate people seeking asylum.
Secondly, we need to work to end the conditions of conflict and disorder and persecution in many countries – in Africa, and the Middle East, and elsewhere – that force people to seek refuge elsewhere. Most people will not leave their home, if their life there does not become intolerable, and want to return when conditions improve.
Thirdly, and more practically, we need an asylum system that deals with asylum claims as quickly and as fairly as possible, and then repatriates those whose claims are rejected (after any appeals have been heard). It is hard, but that might mean deporting people back to countries like India or Albania (most asylum claims by people from there are rejected).
Fourthly, if we actually want to stop people risking their lives on small boats, we could provide safe and legal routes to claim asylum that do not involve people trying to enter the UK by irregular means.
Fifthly, obviously we need to work with our neighbours, particularly France, to address small boats, in a similar way to the way we tackled people smuggling in lorries. Who is selling these boats? Can we control their manufacture and sale? Can we intercept them before they are launched or get far offshore?
Just to give context, asylum claims reached 74,000 in 2022 but did not reach the peak of 84,000 in 2002. Historically, asylum was granted to between a quarter and third of people claiming it, but that percentage has been rising in recent years (and for a number of countries – such as Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Eritrea, Sudan – asylum is given to 80% or more of claimants). About 3/4 of those refused asylum appeal, and about a third of the appeals are granted (so that is about a quarter of those refused also granted asylum). And the number of people who are removed or choose to leave voluntarily is significantly less than the number granted asylum (or some other status allowing them to remain in the UK).
Some more numbers here : https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01403/
And here : https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/asylum-and-resettlement-datasets
And a summary here : https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-december-2022/how-many-people-do-we-grant-protection-to
I agree with you
But I did this to provoke debate and it is
Are we sure that’s how Dublin rules work, that refugees have to seek asylum in the first safe country they come to? I don’t believe it is.
That is not how Dublin III works.
What should the govermment do about small boats
One answer being:
Rejoin the EU so that the Dublin regulation can be used to require asylum seekers to apply in the first safe country they get to
But Dublin isn’t the source of that. The source is the original international law. The EU, with freedom of movement, means that that can’t be imposed. Dublin then says it can, again, be imposed despite free movement.
We’ve therefore got that right being outside the EU.
You are wrong
The UNHCR says so
As far as I am aware no international convention so much as mentions the concept of a first safe country let alone requires seeking asylum in such a country. If you know better the please furnish a reference.
You are right Bernard
I have some problems with the poll:
I do not think the second option should refer to “legal” routes of access. As far as I know the concept of illegal entry is not used in any international conventions. The Dublin Convention refers to regular and irregular entry.
As far as I know, no internatiobal conventions refer a “first safe country”. Moreover the Dublin Convention does not say that the first state of entry is responsible for handling asylum requests. I quote from the convention:
“The criteria for establishing responsibility are, in hierarchical order:
。family considerations,
。recent possession of visa or residence permit in a Member State and
。whether the applicant has entered EU irregularly, or regularly.”
The first entry criterion is only relevant in the third case and even then only if entry to the EU is irregular. In any case the question of first entry is likely to become moot in the near future. The EU parliament voted in 2017 that negotiations should be held to replace the first entry criterion it with a quota rule. Currently the commission is proposing this should be done. See: https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/common-european-asylum-system/country-responsible-asylum-application-dublin-regulation_en
‘What should the government do about asylum seekers’.
Addendum:
1. Stop austerity policies so that people already here will feel looked after and not resentful to those who need our help.
2. Stop telling people we can’t afford stuff like a decent NHS, elderly and schools and that immigrants are a burden we can’t afford (when you look at what society spends on housing, cars and luxury watches).
3. Stop supporting countries that persecute people who end becoming refugees or claiming asylum (Yemen is a shameful example and totally unacceptable).
4. Stop selling military hardware to countries who create refugees.
5. Work harder at making friends with all countries and helping them to help their citizens instead of exploiting them for our benefit.
6. Stop being a poodle for the USA and its aggressive internationalism.
7. Let each country rule as its people see fit and stop interfering with their choices just because they are different to you (are you listening Mr Biden?).
8. What else?
Good stuff….
8. Start taking the climate emergency seriously as this will drive the increase of asylum seekers exponentially.
Set up an annual Global meeting similar to COP where all countries work out how they are going to address the issues that force people to seek asylum with legal enforced goals.
Allow asylum seekers to work whilst awaiting a decision. ( Why aren’t they allowed. Is it appeasement to the ignorant and bigots).
It is clear that the Conservatives are getting really desperate as they have lost the plot on most vital issues such as the NHS, public service provision and pay, climate, social care, and more, grasping at a last straw of appealing to the far right and mindless flag-waving “patriotism”. Labour, from Yvette Cooper’s response, seems more concerned about the “efficiency! and “competence” of immigration bureaucracy and Home Office procedures rather than the blatant inhumanity and illegality of Braverman and Sunak’s drive into the hands of fascism. They are following the Tories of the 1930s who made it as difficult as possible for Jews escaping from Germany, Austria, and other European countries to enter the UK.
With a view to the next election isn’t this a case of trying to corner Labour by painting it as the “party of immigration”. Sunak said as much in PMQs today.
This would appear to be the work of Isaac Levido (spelling?), the Tory party “strategist” who is back on board, and probably one of the policies that came out of the recent weekend Tory head-banging session at Chequers
As always this is being driven by politics. The migrants (and the country) are incidental
Agreed
Migrants are their next £350 million a week on the side of a bus
Pour money into the system! It’s not that hard to differentiate between asylum and migration. However we struggle systems, in all areas and we play shoe string when we need not. The short sightedness of our political system is questionable and in need of review.
We now live in a very different world and there is a dire need to adapt. .
We should tell as many people as possible how stupid this government is, especially the home secretary.
https://bylinetimes.com/2023/03/07/suella-braverman-uses-vote-leave-playbook-against-vulnerable-refugees/
According to that article there are more refugees coming here than the whole population.
I noticed in her speech in parliament she used the phrase enough is enough. She obviously does not understand what that means to many voters.
I’d love to know who on this site voted for Rwanda to agree to accept more people.
Or maybe I wouldn’t.
I don’t know
But trolls happen
I completely understand that our resources are tight. Housing, health, welfare are struggling. However the vote seeking populace would have them drown in there boats and be happy. This is a very difficult time and I’m ashamed of our government and governance speak up Labour or any other countenance. So horribly sad!
It is really not possible to give just one of those as an answer we need to have a combination of more staff to deal with the applications and rejoin the EU to get the Dublin Agreement back and have more safe routes.
more than one option needed
– more ‘legal’ routes – it’s not illegal to seek asylum nor cross the Channel in a boat
– more staff to clear backlog and speed up asylum system
– create a positive narrative about (im)migration (never gonna happen under Tories)
Accepted
Lesson learned
Asylum seekers are not the issue.
A desperate government intent on virtue signalling to its supporters that it is competent to deal with the issues its supporters think are important is.
From their point of view it is a convenient item that they want to keep uppermost in voters minds until the time of the next election on the basis that some voters are more likely to vote for them if they are being seen to take the issue seriously.
In fact numbers are small in relation to other countries and dwarfed by legal immigration (which is equally a problem for racists).
The issue is purely symbolic therefore , intended to deflect from the rather larger numbers of legal immigrants.
All the more reason why sensible people should debunk the idea that 100 million refugees/ asylum seekers. are queuing up to come here.
The UNHCR reckons there are about 100 million people who have been “forcibly displaced”
https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/
But about half of them are displaced within their own country. About two thirds of the other half are refugees, mainly in neighboring countries.
About 5 million are seeking asylum, which is a lot if they all came to the UK, but they won’t. As things stand only a few tens of thousands are getting to the UK each year, and many other countries are taking more, in absolute numbers and/or per capita.
What exactly are we mean to be afraid of?
Lies
I disagree. The argument is not primarily about numbers but about our moral duty to ensure the well being of our fellow humans. If indeed there were 100 million people desparately trying to enter the UK, all that would show is the extent to which humanity has failed in that duty and the urgency of doing something about it.
Debating numbers strikes me as pointless when for most of Braverman’ intended audience three is three too many.
One poster on Facebook summed up the situation perfectly with:
“Better 100 million refugees than one Suella Braverman.”
Telling people that the population of the UK is only 68 million would make them realise how ludicrous Braverman’s statement is, surely?
Not if you want to believe her