And also note the Tories ‘we can tax less and spend more’ fantasy is predicated on slashing public sector admin - including swingeing cuts on the immigration and customs services. It’s little more than a naked appeal to racism and nothing to do with health or any ostensible issue.
Whatever the system, you’ve still got people arriving in the country through illegal methods. You still haven’t said what you plan to do with those who we are unable to deport.
(And would you also feel comfortable, when we can deport people, of sending them back to countries where their lives are at a very real risk? If not, how does any quota get enforced?)
Are you also happy for every country to set up their own system? Do you not feel we should lead by example, and show that it’s not really that difficult to accomodate refugees who need our help?
Why not? Let them do their own thing and we can do ours. Why should we “set an example” ie - let everyone in?
The fact is that if we had our own system the levels would be set by democratically accountable politicians - not the UN or EU or any other body and if the public wanted higher levels of immigration then the politicians would be silly not to give them it.
Surely you’d agree that things aren’t in a good way right now?
You wouldn’t think it would be a bad thing if other less admirable administrations decided that they would set up their own systems, where they let in no refugees at all? Even if that meant people could not escape civil war, persecution, or anything else?
I don’t think they’re in anything like as bad a state as the politicians like to make out. Just because it’s a hot political topic doesn’t mean that the real situation is about to bring the country to its knees.
That’s a doctrine of despair - Crooks will break the law, that’s no reason not to have a law and try to enforce it. There will always be illegal immigration - people smuggling, snakeheads and so on. That doesn’t mean we have to be happy about it.
Also no one (at least no resectable party) is saying that there will be no asylum seekers admitted - all we are saying is that we will set quotas on the numbers we feel we can take, so genuine refugees will still be able to get here - as will economic migrants, but on our terms.
How, other than illegally?
And (yet again), what do you do when more arrive than the quota allows for, and you can’t send them back to their home countries?
That really isn’t our concern. Let sovereign states run their own affairs as they see fit.
.
I sort of agree with this. However I am quite comfortably off, and I’m not about to lose my job to a recent immigrant who will work for less that I will. However I do know people (mainly in the construction industry) who are not so confident or sanguine. Also my kids don’t go to a state school where English isn’t the first language of most pupils, but other people can’t afford to avoid this.
The idea is that they wiill be asessed (possibly by the UNHCR) while abroad and when they are accepted then they come.
?
Why can’t we send them back? (And if we can’t - which I doubt, then they can come off next year’s quota)
That’ll be the same construction industry that has a severe shortage of skilled labour?
Was that your attitude to, say, Serbia? Or Rwanda? How about Sudan at the moment?
Only a small proportion of EAL pupils are asylum seekers. You’re conflating different issues.
You don’t seem to understand what some of these people are escaping from. They’re being threatened by their own government, the police, the army…they simply are not in a position to make some kind of formal request to the UN (that useless body"?!) and await an outcome. “My address? Oh, just put ‘Basement, Police Intelligence HQ’, they’ll know who you mean.”
How do we send somebody back to Somalia? Or Iran? I suppose at least with Afghanistan, we can pile them into a Hercules…
That’s the one - the one that the Eastern Europeans are driving down the wages in. Maybe that’s a good thing, maybe not, but to the people I know who work in it it is most definately a very bad thing - and they vote.
.
Bafflement and hopelessness were probably my two predominant emotions. I feel terribly sorry for the poor people in those places, but I don’t feel any kind of duty towards them. The world’s a fucked up place and we can’t put it right all on our own.
I don’t remember a lot of Rwandans coming here either.
That’s precisely my point. They went to neighbouring countries. These countries coped with millions of refugees. They did so under the obligations of the UN Convention. Your approach would make it much easier for any of these countries in such situations to close the borders, making death tolls rise far higher than they otherwise would. And we (as a country) could not criticise them, because we’d decided we couldn’t cope with a comparitively-miniscule number of refugees.
In general those are not the people who are coming here. As you say their own governments have them pretty closely watched. Most refugees are more along the lines of the Kosovars in that they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong period in history. I don’t see why people who have been displaced into refugee camps can’t make an application to the UK from there.
…
That’s the idea - in a plane. It’s really not that hard. One of the reason that this is a big issue is that people know that we never deport people, and as such simply don’t believe the figures or trust the government on this.
And once they are in the neighbouring country they could apply - that’s the very idea. So we would be able to help them and not help someone from albania who fancies a better life.
I think getting permission to land a plane load of rejected refugees in Tehran might be a problem. And as for landing safely in Mogadishu…are you volunteering to help?!
A fair point! So they get in - that’s some of the quota used up.
Actually, this is completely unnecessary, given the current provision for cessation - essentially making a decision as to when such people can return home safely. As is the case with the Balkans. (Whether or not cessation tends to be applied correctly is a different debate.) (Plus, if we’d left the convention, we’d have no authority to suggest that cessation should be enforced for any group once they were no longer in danger.)
I thought these were the ones being returned because the quota had been exceeded! 
Then they come out of next years.