There is a difference between asylum seekers and skilled migrants (the latter is what every country wants, the former is where all the political heat is on).

On asylum seekers, in reality, the plan to move some asylum seekers to Rwanda won't work - its too expensive, legally dubious, and lawyers/charities will fight it tooth and nail. Its more of a political stunt and won't really do anything.

Up to now, the UK is very ineffective at removing asylum seekers. Overall, its incredibly expensive to remove asylum seekers from the UK and even when this occurs often lawyers/charities continue to fight for them to be returned to the UK. The UK, also doesn't require ID cards, uses English, and 'still' has a very strong economy all of which are massive pull factors for 'asylum seekers'. When you look at the numbers of children from ethnic minorities in the UK its pretty astounding - we are going to see huge changes in the demographic in the next 100 years (note: that's ok, but its ok to be honest).

The only thing that 'may' have made a slight difference is ironically Brexit. Yes it looks like a disaster, but before Brexit lots of asylum seekers that claimed asylum in mainland Europe when they received permission to stay immediately moved to the UK for work opportunities (I don't blame them). But then again this may not work as Brexit has been such a disaster the UK really needs more workers to come and work in the UK.

Note: I am neutral on 'asylum seekers' in the UK. Its a massive political hot potato and generally avoid all newspapers views on them - but the left and right newspapers are both pretty bad at talking about all this in an honest way.

Scotland doesn't have England's immigration problems because immigrants generally don't want to go to Scotland. It's easy to be virtuous when the problem doesn't affect you.

> immigrants generally don't want to go to Scotland

Fewer migrants come to Scotland than England, but again: migrants come to Scotland, they enrich society, and their population is demographically useful.

> the problem doesn't affect you.

It was shown very recently that 'concern' over immigration in the UK is correlated to newspaper reporting, not levels of migration.

There is a big difference between people legally arriving under a points system and people rowing themselves over to live illegally.

> people rowing themselves over to live illegally.

Complete misdirection. It's lawful for asylum seekers to arrive by otherwise-unlawful transport. It'd be better if they didn't have to, of course.

They aren't seeking asylum as evidenced by the number of places they could have stopped beforehand.

There's no legal or moral requirement for asylum seekers to seek asylum in the nearest safe neighbouring country.

I know France is awful, but it’s not that bad.

So what? They are mostly fleeing from the chaos that the Western nations are responsible for: Western "donations" of surplus food (to keep our prices from collapsing) have wrecked local farmers in Africa, Western "donations" of second-hand clothing (aka mitumba) have wrecked the African textile industry, Western shelters and laundromats for dark money have enabled countless dictators to steal from their people, and it was Western colonialism and the handling of the collapse of said colonialism that is directly responsible for many of the border and land conflicts in Africa. And now, with climate change where the Western nations have emitted the vast majority of CO2 responsible for said climate change, it is once again the Western nations that drive the next wave of people fleeing from droughts and hunger.

People risking everything on the dangerous migration paths out of Africa don't do that out of fun, they do it because they have literally no other option left. The chickens are coming home to roost, one might say.

Besides: the hurdles that "point systems" place are, similarly to many social security/unemployment insurance systems, set up in a way that allows deceptive politicians to claim "but we have a system!!!" while fully knowing that the hurdles allow only a tiny amount of people to actually use it.

This kind of difference is exactly what the home office are trying so hard to manipulate. There is no such thing as a refugee if you listen to the way the home office speak.

It's the first time we've built a concentration camp for in a long time