British government policy on illegal immigrants.

[Sm5]

deleted

 

[AlterEgo]

They exist because of legislation and international agreements that make them so. Any responsibilities or conditionalities are the result of that, perhaps subsequent legislation, and not some nebulous concept of 'moral responsibility'. If we wish to attach conditionality to such things, it should be done explicitly in law, in line with our international legal obligations, and agreed by the majority.

So, for you, the law is the beginning and end of a person’s responsibilities in life. That’s an interesting and very niche perspective which I don’t think I have ever come across before.

 

[Yew]

So, for you, the law is the beginning and end of a person’s responsibilities in life. That’s an interesting and very niche perspective which I don’t think I have ever come across before.

I have said nothing of the sort?

 

[najaB]

Some may consider a brick built solid building, with new roof, double glazing, heating, medical dental and food as not being bad…

Certainly I think those being “used” in Eastern Poland would gladly take it, over their current predicament.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you there. The argument that "it's better than what they're used to" doesn't wash for me - if the barracks was closed because it wasn't suitable for HM Forces then its not suitable for anyone.

 

[Busaholic]

So, for you, the law is the beginning and end of a person’s responsibilities in life. That’s an interesting and very niche perspective which I don’t think I have ever come across before.

Alternatively, it may only have arisen in order to start or prolong a 'discussion' on here: he'd (I assume he) be the only one to know that.

 

[Sm5]

Deleted

 

[najaB]

By all accounts the building look solid and well maintained.

That's not what has been reported (my bold):

Over the past 12 months, hundreds of men have continued to be moved into the site despite inspectors branding conditions “filthy, impoverished and unsafe” and a High Court ruling that the decision to put asylum-seekers there had been unlawful.

Former residents of the barracks interviewed by the Morning Star over the past year have spoken of long-term effects on their mental health because of the overcrowded, unsanitary and “prison-like” conditions they endured.

‘Beggars belief:’ Charities demand closure of Napier Barracks one year on

morningstaronline.co.uk

It's noteworthy that the Home Office has blocked a cross-party committee from visiting to evaluate conditions for themselves. While it's not conclusive, one would assume that were there nothing to hide the repeated requests would be granted.

We are a soft touch compared to Australia and the US, who basically treats illegal immigrants as criminals.

"Yes, I hit my wife but you should see what Dave next door does to his wife".

 

[Sm5]

deleted

 

[najaB]

I refer to my picture above.

Not good enough for us, but good enough for them...

 

[Sm5]

deleted

 

[AlterEgo]

The idea that “you were treated badly by the system and therefore this gives an excuse for others to be treated badly” is one of the core political neuroses which has afflicted Britain since full enfranchisement.

 

[brad465]

There is a right way and a wrong way to deal with this current situation.
Whilst many protest against globalisation, a bit more of it in these regions would lift standards, so the incentive to migrate wanes.

Not only this, but until the West, including us, stops messing up the Middle East through failed military interventions and selling arms to regimes to use in regional conflict (the UK and US selling arms to Saudi Arabia, who are a major player in the Yemen conflict, is the most prolific example), migration of the sort we're seeing will continue. We seem to keep thinking about putting up barriers to prevent them coming, when actually it should be far less divisive and effective to prevent the creation of hostile/unstable environments in the homelands of these migrants in the first place. Yes it can be argued many of the regimes there were bad before we got involved, but we certainly haven't made the situation any better, especially where a lack of exit strategy existed (e.g. Libya in 2011 and Afghanistan this year).

However, I think there are a number of Governments, not just in the UK but in other Western countries and the likes of Russia, who would actually like the migrant/refugee crisis to continue, as well as military intervention where it has been used, as both the "big standing on the international stage" mindset and creating an "enemy" in the form of migrants/refugees, allows the population to be distracted from domestic issues that are the fault of relevant Governments, and/or domestic issues can be blamed on this "enemy".

 

[Sm5]

Deleted

 

[XAM2175]

Co-incidentally this article was published yesterday:

Home Office ‘covering up’ its own study of why refugees come to the UK

Ministers argue that accepting asylum seekers creates a ‘pull factor’, but are refusing to release their evidence

www.theguardian.com

The Home Office is covering up its own research into why refugees and asylum seekers travel to the UK because ministers “know their arguments don’t stand up,” charities claim.

Officials are refusing to release its evidence on whether so-called “pull factors” play a part in asylum seekers making journeys to the UK.

On Thursday deputy prime minister Dominic Raab talked about “reducing the pull factor” in an attempt to justify the government’s controversial plans for offshore asylum processing centres in Albania. Home Office minister Chris Philp has claimed that accepting asylum seekers who have travelled through Europe “creates a pull factor where migrants are incentivised to undertake dangerous and illegal journeys”.

Yet when the Home Office was asked for evidence to support its claims, it refused. A freedom of information response dated 28 October says the material could not be disclosed because it was “likely to inhibit the free and frank provision of advice and the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation”.

Sophie McCann, advocacy officer at Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) UK accused ministers of knowing their arguments were ill-founded. McCann said: “Ministers are covering up evidence that is central to their case for the need to target refugees and asylum seekers with inhumane ‘deterrence’ measures.

“Ministers are refusing to release the evidence they hold on whether or not such a pull factor even exists.

McCann added: “ The reality is that ‘pull factors’ are a myth – people who are fleeing persecution or conflict don’t need any further incentive to look for safety. It is hard to see why the government would refuse to share evidence that supports its plans – the only conclusion to draw is that they know their arguments don’t stand up.”

Previous Home Office research into asylum seekers’ decision-making appears to undermine the pull factor argument for harsher policies. It says: “They [asylum seekers] are guided more by agents, the presence or absence of family and friends, language, and perceived cultural affinities than by scrutiny of asylum policies or rational evaluation of the welfare benefits on offer.”

It follows a Refugee Council report last week that highlighted misleading statements on asylum seekers by the home secretary, Priti Patel.

Analysis, partly based on Home Office data, shows that nearly two-thirds of people who cross the Channel in small boats are judged to be genuine refugees and allowed to remain – contradicting claims by Patel that 70% of small boats arrivals “are not genuine asylum seekers”.

More than 23,000 people have arrived in the UK this year in small boats, almost three times 2020’s total of about 8,500. But the overall number of arrivals is still relatively modest, certainly when compared with the number nearly 20 years ago, when UK asylum applications reached 84,132.

Yet signs are the issue is becoming a political headache for Boris Johnson and Patel. The home secretary has staked her reputation on reducing boat arrivals, but also seems unwilling to accept that refugees will continue to travel to the UK.

Experts also say boat arrivals have increased largely because the government has shut down other entry routes, such as ferries, because of increased security measures.

Meanwhile, more than 100 leaders of human rights and anti-slavery groups will write to MPs this week urging them to scrap or amend parts of Patel’s borders bill to avert “catastrophic” consequences for victims of human trafficking. The bill, currently making its way through parliament, is designed to address concerns about asylum, but its provisions will also make sweeping changes to the way modern slavery is tackled. The letter argues that conflating the two will have “unintended negative consequences” on victims of trafficking and slavery and undermine the UK’s position as a world leader in dealing with the issue.

Tamara Barnett of the Human Trafficking Foundation, which has coordinated the joint letter: “This bill will lead to fewer prosecutions of actual criminals, while those who genuinely need support, including children, will be failed by the new system. MPs need to urgently amend this bill before it’s too late.”

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The nationality and borders bill will fix the broken asylum system so it is fair but firm, helping those in genuine need, while stopping those who abuse the system.”

I note particularly the following passages:

Previous Home Office research into asylum seekers’ decision-making appears to undermine the pull factor argument for harsher policies. It says: “They [asylum seekers] are guided more by agents, the presence or absence of family and friends, language, and perceived cultural affinities than by scrutiny of asylum policies or rational evaluation of the welfare benefits on offer.”

Analysis, partly based on Home Office data, shows that nearly two-thirds of people who cross the Channel in small boats are judged to be genuine refugees and allowed to remain – contradicting claims by Patel that 70% of small boats arrivals “are not genuine asylum seekers”.

 

[MotCO]

Not only this, but until the West, including us, stops messing up the Middle East through failed military interventions and selling arms to regimes to use in regional conflict (the UK and US selling arms to Saudi Arabia, who are a major player in the Yemen conflict, is the most prolific example), migration of the sort we're seeing will continue. We seem to keep thinking about putting up barriers to prevent them coming, when actually it should be far less divisive and effective to prevent the creation of hostile/unstable environments in the homelands of these migrants in the first place. Yes it can be argued many of the regimes there were bad before we got involved, but we certainly haven't made the situation any better, especially where a lack of exit strategy existed (e.g. Libya in 2011 and Afghanistan this year).

However, I think there are a number of Governments, not just in the UK but in other Western countries and the likes of Russia, who would actually like the migrant/refugee crisis to continue, as well as military intervention where it has been used, as both the "big standing on the international stage" mindset and creating an "enemy" in the form of migrants/refugees, allows the population to be distracted from domestic issues that are the fault of relevant Governments, and/or domestic issues can be blamed on this "enemy".

I tend to agree that we need to look at why migrants want to come to this country, and in particular why their home country is so bad - it takes a lot to leave your home country, your friends and family etc and travel to a foreign country. (I've known someone leave England for Australia, and not like it so came back.)

The migrants tend to be the more educated, so the net result is the old home country is left with less educated people, and the new country benefits from their skills and knowledge. (Indeed, we have seen this in Europe as a result of freedom of movement - the Eastern Europeans are moving west, leaving their old countries in a worse state.)

The solution is to aid, invest in and guide the countries where the migrants leave from so that there is less incentive to leave. If their standards of living rose, they would not need to leave. But this also means that there is a form of government where people are well-treated, so some intervention (e.g. financial) may be required. I know this is out of fashion, but colonisation did help in the past - it introduced better legal systems, more democracy etc.

 

[SteveP29]

The solution is to aid, invest in and guide the countries where the migrants leave from so that there is less incentive to leave. If their standards of living rose, they would not need to leave. But this also means that there is a form of government where people are well-treated, so some intervention (e.g. financial) may be required. I know this is out of fashion, but colonisation did help in the past - it introduced better legal systems, more democracy etc.

I would imagine that creates competition for these countries that the migrants/ refugees/ immigrants are attracted to though and I guess that wouldn't be wanted by those countries, seeing as they possibly could be a threat to their wealth