The devil is in the detail. The core issue remains what to do with them if they do land here. Ok, you can use up our already scant military resources (arguably needed elsewhere given the Russia/ Ukraine situation) to arrest them and intern them in POW style camps near our coastline but this also incurs costs. You say don't feed them or water them or provide shelter for them but whilst this will certainly save money, how palatable will this be to most UK voters? If the immigrants protest or revolt do we shoot them?Originally Posted by bordering
Far better to prevent them from landing in the first place, but this would not only mean the additional costs of utilizing the RN to supplement the Coast Guard, but would also entail being able to "turn" the small boats away and if they refuse to do so, do we sink them and then refuse to save them from drowning? Certainly this would discourage others making the journey and reduce the numbers, but is this a palatable solution either?
If, say, we have 40k a year and the US 200k, in comparison to the size of our respective countries, the level of illegal crossings in the US is far far less than it is here but then such illegal crossings are also far easier to deal with for the Americans than our own are. Such crossings in the US overwhelmingly involve states that border Mexico and are made primarily by land. It is a neighbouring country and therefore easier to both forcibly return them to Mexico and construct physical barriers to help keep them out in the first place. We, on the other-hand, face illegal immigration primarily from small boats crossing the Channel from people fleeing not Europe but from Afghanistan, the Middle East and North Africa. It is both far harder to provide physical defences to protect our border and far harder (and costlier) to return them to their country of origin. Short of shooting at them to stop them landing here in the first place I see no easy solutions and that particular option won't be palatable.
As for benefits, they won't get benefits as such unless they have been granted asylum although they do get housing support (if not in areas of their choosing and availability frequently means families are split up, living sometimes hundreds of miles away from each other) and are eligible for a preloaded ASPEN debit card at £49/week per person for food, clothing, toiletries. This is reduced to £9.95/week if the accommodation provides food. Not as brilliant as some may make out but certainly manageable given that the amounts are per person and the total cost to tax payers is undeniably far too high and small wonder that UK citizens, struggling to survive on minimum wage and crumbling social services resent it. But, again, once they are here, do we deny them shelter, food, clothing, toiletries, medical assistance and place them in what would effectively be concentration camps whilst awaiting processing?
Around 37k arrived in small boats in 2024, a 25% increase on 2023 but still less than 2022. These small boats account for between 30-40% of asylum seekers in the UK with 40% being made up of those who originally entered here legally on visas to work or study.
The majority of those coming on boats (76%) are young males over 18 with children under 18 accounting for around 14%. These proportions are said to have been stable over time. It is tempting to say that these young mena are either all radicalized or engaged in criminal activities and, undoubtedly, some may be, but the evidence shows that a key reason why the proportion of young males amongst such boat people is so high is simply down to the inherent dangers of the crossing and that in the majority of cases, female and child family members are then applied for to join them via legal application routes.
The facts are more complicated than they are often portrayed in the media but despite the levels of illegal immigration being unsustainable I really do not think that there are any easy answers.
Reply With Quote