To claim asylum in the UK you must be physically present in the UK. Which means that functionally, there are no "proper channels" through which the vast majority of these asylum seekers could apply they have to cross the UK borders illegally first. But that wasn't the point of my comment, I was pointing out that this policy is only in place because the government has completely failed to prevent these border crossings and this policy is essentially just them giving up on trying.

I would be quite surprised if the policy ever actually comes into effect given the timing of its announcement before the local elections.

I mean if the UK were to provide transportation into the UK they wouldn't arrive, as you call it, "illegaly". How do you seek asylum in the UK through proper channels, in your opinion?

That said, it reminds me of the EU paying Libya and Turkey to keep migrants/asylum seekers from crossing over to Europe. I'm not convinced the migrants are being treated fairly.

The "fix" for reducing migration isn't to raise up walls and barriers, but to help improve circumstances in the country of origins; improve stability and economic outlook and the like. That said, another approach to reduce migration to the UK seems to be to make it less attractive.

> The "fix" for reducing migration isn't to raise up walls and barriers, but to help improve circumstances in the country of origins

Migrants are typically among the most motivated people in the source country. They are the ones that can get it together to organize transport, travel a great distance, maybe learn a new language… altogether a great effort. Perhaps one way to improve circumstances in the country of origin would be for those people to stay at home and put their effort into their own country.

But it turns out we actually like the economic consequences of having those type of immigrants in our country. They are, by and large, hard working and skilled. And so we continue to brain-drain the countries of origin, at their expense.

> In the plans, single men who arrive illegally in boats or lorries will be sent to Rwanda

Which depending on which organisation you speak to, may or may not be legal:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61122241

Personally, I'm embarrassed at how xenophobic and closed-minded my country has become.

Also crossing the channel for the purpose of claiming asylum is not actually illegal.

Without looking it up, are you aware of and can you identify the "proper channels" for claiming asylum in the UK?

I ask as most people who claim asylum seekers should do so "properly & legally" are unable to describe what that process is and I find it odd that people keep referring to a process they have no idea about.

TalkRadio in the UK has a lot to answer for. Self-important blowhards spouting this nonsense day in and day out but, like you say, when you probe even slightly in to the detail, there's nothing.

I used to work in an office where colleagues insisted on listening to radio phone-ins and my choice was either headphones or deep hatred & anger towards the ignorant callers. Usual choice was headphones, better for the stress levels!

The government’s plan has faced objections from across the political spectrum. It’s widely accepted that it’s highly immoral. The people that agree with it are by far a minority.

It's unpopular with left-leaning journalists, lawyers, and politicians. Polls are mixed about whether it's popular with the general public, but that's what elections are for.

> This is a very bitter /r/unitedkingdom-style comment, I don't expect to see things like this on HN.

most posts about the UK now on HN turn into a /r/unitedkingdom whingefest about government policy mostly unrelated to the topic

can you imagine if every post about something in the US was the same?

mods need to step it up

Or maybe it's just the common viewpoint among most computer-literate, non-retired Brits.

It tends to be more popular among middle class people, and much less popular among working class people who actually bear the brunt of uncontrolled immigration. It's not the middle classes who are struggling to find social housing or any housing at all.

> uncontrolled immigration

Obviously not true.

Anyway blaming government failures such as social housing on immigration is a well known trick.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/04/how-did-the-...

If anyone who can get in a boat in France can migrate to the UK, that is, by definition, uncontrolled. What you call "a well known trick" is, in fact, a perfectly reasonable argument, whatever the Guardian wants to say about it. It is fact that we have a massive shortfall in social housing. What caused that shortfall is largely irrelevant.

There are controls on immigration therefore it is not uncontrolled. The fact that a few desperate people are prepared to risk their lives in the Channel doesn't make it uncontrolled.

"Not building enough social housing is largely irrelevant to dealing with the social housing crisis." Hmmm.

How exactly are illegal entries into the UK via small boats controlled?

If this is controlled, why has the number of people arriving in this manner grown enormously in recent years?

Also way to misrepresent the other commenter’s perfectly valid point.

If Border Force intercepts a boat, they bring them ashore and hold the arrivals in short-term detentions centres. The vast majority of these people then apply for asylum, and the majority of claims are accepted. If they do not claim asylum or are refused, they face prosecution or removal.

The proportion of crossings by boat has increased relative to other means (air/lorries) because the technology for detecting undocumented entries via those other means has improved.

All this is easily looked up. The argument that "some people have done this therefore it is uncontrolled" is absurd.

The fact many (note: not all) of those crossing via this means are intercepted and processed through an administrative process does not make it controlled migration.

There is a process in place to deport illegal immigrants and thousands are forcibly returned every year.

About 3000 were forcibly returned between June 2020 and June 2021, although the vast majority of those (2,809) are people convicted of a crime. Few non-criminals are forcibly returned to their point of origin once they are in the country, regardless of their immigration status. Three-quarters of people who enter immigration detention after illegally entering the country are released into the population without being returned.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statist...

> If anyone who can get in a boat in France can migrate to the UK, that is, by definition, uncontrolled.

So this isn’t true at all. You’ve just demonstrated that your own justification is false.

Actually, it is not.

The shortfall in UK's social housing can be traced back to Thatcher's policy of forcing councils to sell off their housing stock at firesale prices, and forbid them from using the money to build new ones.

Calling that an act of vandalism would be grossly unfair to the relevant Germanic tribes.

That may well be true. Thatcher gambled that home owners were more likely to vote conservative (and she was right). But an investigation of the historical cause of our lack of social housing does nothing to solve the problem in 2022, which is what I meant when I said it is irrelevant. We have hundreds of thousands fewer houses than we need, so it doesn't make sense to significantly increase the population of people who will need social housing.

I guess the country is un-policed as well, considering that there still are some people who break the law.

> who actually bear the brunt of uncontrolled immigration

Any kind of source would be useful for such claims.

> It's not the middle classes who are struggling to find social housing or any housing at all.

I guess it depends on your definition of middle class. Middle class is currently the part that's being squeezed, way more than the poor (you can't get money from someone who hasn't any). So yeah, the middle class does get by marginally better than the poor (who often live in Dickensian conditions, true). But bringing down the middle class is not going to solve any of this. On the contrary, the middle class is what you need to develop to get a healthy democracy. The problem is the long tail of high incomes, roughly from the 8th decile up. Including the well-to-do conservatives who fan the flames and keep spreading the idea that the culprits are everybody but themselves.

presumably computer-literate people are more than capable of finding an appropriate place to soapbox their political views.