What are the options legally available to them? They have their own experts, but it sounds like you have a novel idea that hasn't occurred to anyone before.

> legally

They're the ones who make the laws?

I love how Brits take laws/rules so seriously but spend absolutely no time thinking _about_ the rules. How they're made, 2nd order consequences etc

The larger problem is 10 times as many arrive via Heathrow. That’s what causes the pressure on local services, from housing to GPs to transport.

Legally and morally? What is your solution?

Stick them in processing centres until they can be deported. Send a clear message to anyone who might come that it won't work, you won't get in, we won't give you anything, don't risk your life or waste your money.

Australia did exactly this (in the face of howling opposition) and it worked: illegal boat arrivals dropped from ~20,000 per year to almost zero. Thousands of people used to drown attempting the crossing, now no-one drowns. There's your moral case.

Legally, Parliament is sovereign. If the current legal framework doesn't allow it, change the law. Except they won't, because they don't want to solve the problem and they use the law as an excuse as if they aren't the fucking government.

I'm genuinely wondering how harsh you'd be willing to be to get what you want.

What would you do if an individual can't be deported because no country will accept them? Or if their country of origin is likely to kill or torture them? Or if no commercial carrier is willing to risk operating to that country? Would you be willing to deport unaccompanied children with no guarantee that they'd be cared for?

All the more reason for them to stay in France.

The humane option is still available. It’s not too late to take it. But if you keep refusing it, don’t complain when another option gets taken.

Its not clear what your "humane option" is. Care to explain?

This is a perniciously xenophobic take, tbh. Who are you to decide your values are objectively better than theirs? /s

There is a village A dragon comes to the village every year. In exchange for 2% of the children, it spares the rest and promises its “magical” protection from unseen enemies. This arrangement has lasted 2,000 years. Most villagers worship it, even though the custom has left their village far worse off than others in the land.

Some villagers move away. Not all of them are dragon-worshippers, but some are and they still try to summon the dragon.

Now the dragon free villagers face a choice:

Keep them out. But that means some innocent children among them will die.

Let them in. Risk the cult spreading again inside the walls and possibly bringing the dragon back.

Go kill the dragon themselves. Accept substantial casualties including innocent dragon worshippers and some of their own people.

Killing the dragon would mean temporarily brutal treatment of the worshippers and the destruction of their culture, but it would spare future generations from an unbounded amount of suffering.

I'm really not sure what point you're making here. What is the "dragon" in irregular migration. What is the "village"?

It isn’t hard to parse. If you’re very literal minded, forget the mapping and just engage with the story on its own terms, then we can parse it.

Otherwise, I can only assume the trade offs are too uncomfortable (cognitive dissonance, you're a gentle soul!) or it’s a bad-faith feint to shift the burden while posing as “too rational” to engage.

No analogy is perfect. The question is whether the trade off it illustrates applies. Engage with that.