I'm a bit hesitant to post this, but it comes from a place of genuine curiosity and of wanting a clearer understanding of the situation. Because trying to make sense of things through online resources feels like a minefield. My gut tells me that migration is a good thing, but I want some solid ammunition for when far-right idiots try to argue.
Firstly it seems like there is a large amount of conflation between 'immigration', 'illegal immigration' and 'asylum seekers'. As far as I understand it, asylum seekers are coming into this country legally in order to apply for asylum. However, a lot come in via small boats which is an illegal method of entry. It seems that there are very few legal ways to enter if you're an asylum seeker. Once you're here though, I think it's legal once you're going through the asylum process? Either way as far as I can tell, asylum seekers make for a small portion of the overall number of immigrants. But when you see people protesting, they mainly seem to be concerned by people coming in via boats. Surely it's fair greater number of legal migrants that are the ones more likely to put a strain on infrastructure?
And yes there definitely are strains on the NHS and other public services. The population is growing, and these services need to grow alongside that. But isn't it more sensible to say that the fault lies not with migrants, but the fact that these services are being mismanaged and underfunded?
I've also heard that the UK has an ageing population. Without immigration we soon won't have the workforce necessary to support the non-working portion of the population.
So is there actually an issue with immigration, or do the people that argue that case actually have it backwards? Is the problem actually our underfunded services, and the whole immigration rhetoric purely populist nonsense to get the far-right in power (who in turn, aim to give tax breaks to the rich and exacerbate the issue even further)?
And where exactly can I go to get factual information about this sort of thing?
Part of the reason for the £2bn expenditure is that the hospitality business was in the shitter after Covid, and this was a quiet way of subisising it until their market recovered.
Another reason is that the way the Conservatives dealt with asylum seekers was by cutting the staff needed to adjudicate their claims, creating a massive backlog who are now parked in hotels and B&Bs. Just another stinking turd left for Labour to clean up. It has also meant asylum seekers being stuck in limbo, sometimes for years.
Also, the current claims adjudication process is arbitrary and vindictive: adjudicators will sometimes call the asylum-seeker a liar because of trivial inconsistencies in different versions of their accounts of events made over multiple years, or in some cases just because they don't think something sounds credible, but with no rattionale given for doubting it. "Well, he doesn't look 18." It's a brutal and dehumanising process. I have knowledge of a number of specific cases, and let's just say that some of the adjudicators seem to have taken their jobs because they're hate-filled xenophobes. A system of randomised peer review of decisions would halp, as would removal of the bad apple.
I do agree that, at least, countries like Lebanon should be getting foreign aid to assist in their housing all those Syrian refugees. But it's wrong-headed and malicious to tell people running for their lives that they've run too far or crossed too many borders when seeking safety. And it's even more malicious to assume that most asylum-seekers are cunning con artists playing the system. There are some of those, but the brutality and insanity in Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan and other places is utterly horrendous, and millions of people have been displaced. They don't deserve to be further punished to appease a few loud-mouthed racists in the countries they've fled to.
I don't disagree with your overall message.
However, I find it very hard to evaluate to what extent the asylum checks are working when really all we have are success rate statistics (which could mean they're largely deserving, or we have a too-lenient system. How to judge?) and anecdotal statements about the destruction of documents, and inconsistent stories (e.g. those who failed to be granted asylum in the UK presenting somewhere else with a different nationality).
But I can't see how you're in any different position in terms of information, and so you seem to be discarding the anecdotes and undeniable incentive to lie to believe the claimants. If it's "malicious to assume that most asylum-seekers are cunning con artists playing the system" because we don't have good evidence of that, is it not equally credulous to assume that most asylum seekers are who they say they are?
It's on the basis of that uncertainty that I'm open to seeing the rules changed.
This is what really annoys me; that it's so hard to find actual data on this kind of stuff. We're forced to rely on anecdotes. But I'd bet that the vast majority of people making these life-threatening journeys are legitimate asylum seekers rather than opportunists.
It seems that if the system had the funding it needed, we wouldn't have a backlog stuck in hotels and would thus save money overall. I don't think any attempt to stop boat crossings is really going to work - they'll just find other ways to cross. Perhaps the only real solution is to provide safe, legal routes. But that seems impossible in the current climate.