Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Gups]

I'm broadly on board with saying the rules should be followed.

But in the case of channel boat crossers they basically are following the rules. The rules are so fundamentally broken there is no way to do things "right".

I'm all for following the rules... Unless the rules are stupid.

I don't think this is anywhere near true.

It's a really new phenomenon that is more similar to Sangatte and the issues with the Channel Tunnel in the early 2000s (followed by a decades of working with the French to close that route). Nothing has changed fundamentally on this.

There are big problems with the asylum system but most of them are not new and go back to at least New Labour. It's because one route that was commonly used has closed and this is an alternative.

And how does this add up to what I said being untrue?

People have the right to claim asylum in the UK.

Things are setup so they have to physically get into the UK to claim their legal right.

Many desperate people on the run don't have any practical options for legally entering the UK.

This all adds up to saying they have to enter illegally using dangerous methods. It's baked into the current setup. Blunt force methods of just continuously trying to make it harder to use this one route won't stop anything.

People have a right to claim asylum. They don't have a right to claim asylum in the country of their choice. Those on small boats are fleeing France.

Edit: See this has already been covered. Ignore.

[Tamas]

The problem is we are using a ruleset created to manage ethnic and political strife in Europe to manage largely economic migration from the far reaches of the world.

I am not saying migration should be stopped, with the world we are (or rather, have) created with climate change etc. the first world's best bet for continued prosperity and stability is to let people in in a managed way, integrate the newcomers rather than be eventually integrated by them in a few decades.

But this torturous process of asylum-seeking (which is ridiculous claim in many cases) and then spending years in limbo waiting for approval is making things worse for everyone involved.

[Josquius]

I don't find international law a persuasive argument on this (or, frankly, much else). You're absolutely right, it's also well established in domestic law. But - which is an important but - it does not confer a right to entry.

As I say my view is that you have a lawful, safe route to asylum (which you should be able to access outside the UK) but that's it - that is the lawful route. And for credibility in the lawful route, you need to be able to stop the unlawful, especially the most visible, dramatised routes.

9 times out of 10. Though I wouldn't completely dismiss those who show up in an unorthodox fashion. Its just what you expect of a desperate person fleeing for their life. Set a higher burden of proof, tighter security in the processing period, etc... by all means, but just a blanket dismissal of someone who comes on a plane and then claims asylum?

You're right that France and Italy get more claims for asylum - both around or above 150,000 to the UK's 70,000. However in the UK 85-90% of claims are successful. In France it's 25-30% and in Italy it's about 10% (in an age with mobile phones that may also be a pull factor - with language, existing diasporas etc).

Yes. But there seems to be an inbuilt assumption here that this is a legal failure on the UK's end.
No consideration that maybe we do just get a bigger percentage of valid cases whilst those chancers just looking to make some money will be grabbed before they reach the UK, or manage to avoid the authorities and not bother applying here- the opportunity to live under the radar here is a lot higher.

There is a great mass. There are 36 million people living in refugee camps or registered asylum seekers with the UN right now. I'm not saying the exceptions don't matter but they're exceptions. And we shouldn't hand-wave away those millions.

I thought we were talking about arrivals to the UK here. Not refugees on a global scale.

Yeah but again this assumes people who are able to move easily and have the resources to do that. This is already what happens. The largest group of refugees are displaced in their own countries, the next largest are in neighbouring countries. They're not stuck in refugee camps permanently (with a few exceptions like Palestinians who don't want to vacate their national claim) because they're a good solution but because the international system has broken down and the rest of the world aren't taking those refugees.

As I say I think the approach in the UK and Europe inadvertently prioritises those most able (both in terms of resources and physically) to get out of their country, to get out of neighbouring countries and get to Europe. I'm very doubtful that is necessarily aligned to greatest need or vulnerability and that I think that should be our focus as a policy (which means prioritising that route over any other and shutting down alternatives).

Definitely true that the refugees we get tend to be from the wealthier segments of society whilst poorer people don't have the resources to do this. Also why we tend to get more young men coming first.
But...being rich and connected doesn't necessarily mean you can't be in danger back home. It could be argued in many cases this puts people far more in the firing line than random peasants in the countryside.

I'd agree with doing more to help the poorer people stuck in camps. But this shouldn't be whilst putting up a blanket "anyone else is forbidden".

This is the stuff I don't like

I think Blair (and Tamas) might be right on ID Cards and I think it could support other aspects of a wider digitalisation of services.

But the rest is Theresa May's hostile environment - you make employers and landlords etc enforce your immigration rules. I think it's bad in principle because you're basically outsourcing or privatising something the state should be doing (and then wondering why the state is becoming ever more ineffective) - I also feel it's a bit shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Immigration enforcement and border control is the job of the state and they shouldn't rely on every interaction a person has with others. But also I think there's many problems with the hostile environment more generally and this route ends up with anyone who is a minority being hassled by police and immigration enforcement people for their papers.

I tend more to the strict enforcement on the external border then relaxed af domestically - bluntly I don't really want police or immigration people prowling our streets for foreigners.

I'd add that EU and World Bank statistics estimate the UK has a similar sized black economy as most EU countries, if not a little smaller. The flipside of it being more liberal and easier/lower cost to do business is that there is less incentive to avoid doing it lawfully.

I dunno. It seems perfectly fair to me to say "You're seeking to profit from these people. By doing so you're guaranteeing that they're in the country legally."
Big issues in the difficulty in getting hold of proof of address and all that to be tackled. But if this could be made free and easy then my criticisms would vanish.
As you say yourself its about fairness, making sure people actually obey the law.
Policing the borders with a hard wall is a fool's errand. Its never going to be a perfect impenetrable forcefield (nor ideally should we want it to be, :EU:) but stopping law breaking in the country is far more attainable.

Another area we should be spending money is in projects to show just how shit the UK actually is, especially for these undocumented workers. We need more advertising about this hitting the relevant countries.
Alongside the old standards of improving opportunities within them.

Yet strangely enough we don't see that many people climbing into rubber boats and making a dash for Greenland.

Cost/benefit.
Getting to the UK from France in a dinghy is feasible. People have swum it.
If Greenland was a similar distance away they absolutely would have.

No, that is the opposite of my logic.  I'm saying Italy and France are *not* as bad as where they're fleeing.  If it's safety they truly want they should be set.

But are they perfectly safe countries?
Especially for refugees?
It makes sense many would want to go further after poor experiences there.
Then there's the factor of many knowing people in the UK already thus seeing it as safer, stuff they've heard about the UK giving a fairer hearing or being better places to find work- again all core to safety.

Fact is under international law countries can institute any procedure they want for asylum seekers as long as those who have followed the procedure are given a hearing.

Pretty sure this is untrue. I'm no lawyer but goes against all I've seen. Evidence?

Or do like all those other countries, who also signed up to those treaties, and just ignore the law and do what is best for our interests. It's not like anyone is going to send an army.
And that's not letting everyone in.

Yeah... Unfortunately Britain can't just start murdering people. Drowned kids washing up on the beaches around the channel are sort of a bad look.

I doubt there are many children in the boats leaving from our side of the channel. Plenty of young men though.

It's also not murder. Britain isn't forcing them in the boats, they chose that themselves, knowing the risks.

You're wrong. There absolutely are children. This is another lie that needs to die.
Just a snippet from a quick google:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/18/baby-dies-boat-capsizes-channel-crossing-france
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/05/several-people-killed-during-channel-crossing-attempt-say-french-authorities
https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20240423-five-migrants-including-a-child-die-in-attempted-channel-crossing-from-france

You're right it probably wouldn't pass muster as 'murder' to just leave a boat to sink (though those calling for them to be machine gunned...). Absolutely manslaughter though.

eople have a right to claim asylum. They don't have a right to claim asylum in the country of their choice. Those on small boats are fleeing France.

Wrong.
https://freemovement.org.uk/are-refugees-obliged-to-claim-asylum-in-the-first-safe-country-they-reach/

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I said many children, I did not say no children.
The lie that needs to die is that we need to let them in and welcome them.
We don't. Mass migration is not a positive for our societies.

[Gups]

eople have a right to claim asylum. They don't have a right to claim asylum in the country of their choice. Those on small boats are fleeing France.

Wrong.
https://freemovement.org.uk/are-refugees-obliged-to-claim-asylum-in-the-first-safe-country-they-reach/

Who said anything about obligations? I said that they don't have a right to claim asylum in the country of their choice. Your link agrees with me.

Article 31 of the Convention protects refugees against prosecution for illegal entry to a receiving country in certain circumstances:

The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

This is not a right of entry. But it is protection against penalisation if the person does manage to evade the border guards and enter a country anyway.

[Valmy]

But this torturous process of asylum-seeking (which is ridiculous claim in many cases) and then spending years in limbo waiting for approval is making things worse for everyone involved.

Certainly it is a big problem here.

[Josquius]

I said many children, I did not say no children.
The lie that needs to die is that we need to let them in and welcome them.
We don't. Mass migration is not a positive for our societies.

Mass migration is a firstly a myth, and secondly, as usually presented, on the whole fuck all to do with refugees.
And yes we do need to accept refugees. Both morally and legally.

eople have a right to claim asylum. They don't have a right to claim asylum in the country of their choice. Those on small boats are fleeing France.

Wrong.
https://freemovement.org.uk/are-refugees-obliged-to-claim-asylum-in-the-first-safe-country-they-reach/

Who said anything about obligations? I said that they don't have a right to claim asylum in the country of their choice. Your link agrees with me.

Article 31 of the Convention protects refugees against prosecution for illegal entry to a receiving country in certain circumstances:

The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

This is not a right of entry. But it is protection against penalisation if the person does manage to evade the border guards and enter a country anyway.

Just before the bit you quoted:

The Refugee Convention actually gives refugees a degree of choice as to where the seek asylum, in fact. Article 31 of the Convention protects refugees against prosecution for illegal entry to a receiving country in certain circumstances:

Also

There is no legal duty or obligation on the asylum seeker to claim and remain in the first safe country and an asylum seeker who moves on is not breaking the law by doing so or disqualifying themselves from refugee status. .

They're not fleeing France. They're travelling through France to make their claim.

Completely valid to argue this isn't great. I'd say they shouldn't have to do this.
But they have the right to apply for asylum in the UK (not to have it automatically granted. To apply for it) and the way we have things setup the only way to do this is to be here.

[Sheilbh]

The problem is we are using a ruleset created to manage ethnic and political strife in Europe to manage largely economic migration from the far reaches of the world.

I am not saying migration should be stopped, with the world we are (or rather, have) created with climate change etc. the first world's best bet for continued prosperity and stability is to let people in in a managed way, integrate the newcomers rather than be eventually integrated by them in a few decades.

But this torturous process of asylum-seeking (which is ridiculous claim in many cases) and then spending years in limbo waiting for approval is making things worse for everyone involved.

So I'm not sure that's totally true of the UK v the rest of Europe. I've mentioned before but the UK looks a lot more like other Anglo countries (US, Australia, Canada) in terms of integration of migrants - in terms of educational attainment, employment rates, earnings. It is a very different situation in many other European countries (in some cases, I think France for example, with those metrics actually falling in successive generations).

In part I think that's because the UK, like those Anglo countries, has a system that prioritises economic migrants. So the largest annual intake in the UK (excluding Ukraine and Hong Kong which are little exceptional) are student visas, work visas - and then family unification and asylum (in that order). My understanding is that most of Europe that's reversed. The largest categories are family unification and refugees.

I think that prioritising economic migration may be the correct thing to do (because it seems to work in terms of people being able to integrate economically and socially). But I think built into it is the common British approach for the last 25 years of fairly liberal for economic migrants and monstrous for asylum seekers - and it focuses the debate about "immigration" as a whole on the smallest group meaning there's often a gap between rhetoric and reality.

9 times out of 10. Though I wouldn't completely dismiss those who show up in an unorthodox fashion. Its just what you expect of a desperate person fleeing for their life. Set a higher burden of proof, tighter security in the processing period, etc... by all means, but just a blanket dismissal of someone who comes on a plane and then claims asylum?

I don't see why not.

Yes. But there seems to be an inbuilt assumption here that this is a legal failure on the UK's end.

I think it is. We're way out of the European norm. But I'd go further - UK courts have developed some wild interpretations of human rights law and parliament should correct it because it's not what was intended. I bang on about it but the restrictions on press freedom are very severe now and not what anyone was intending from putting the Article 8 right to private and family life into domestic legislation. The courts have now said (going up to the Supreme Court) that it is unlawful to report the fact that someone is under investigation by the police - and actually it is worse to do it about someone prominent than a nobody.

Another example, recently overturned on appeal thankfully, but at first instance the courts refused permission to deport a man following his prison sentence for child sexual abuse. The reason for this was the Article 8 rights of his daughter to a family life (which included her father) - despite the fact that the family courts had already banned him from contact with her because he presented a danger to her. Caught and corrected on appeal but an example of some of the very broad interpretations the courts have when applying specifically Article 8.

I thought we were talking about arrivals to the UK here. Not refugees on a global scale.

Well my argument is to prioritise the refugees on the global scale not just the ones with the resources and physical ability to cross Europe and arrive here (or get a plane) - and I think one is needed for the other. I don't think you can go to the public and basically say we'll tolerate tens of thousands of people arriving unexpectedly and unlawfully by crossing the Channel AND we're going to make it easier for people to get asylum from overseas.

I dunno. It seems perfectly fair to me to say "You're seeking to profit from these people. By doing so you're guaranteeing that they're in the country legally."
Big issues in the difficulty in getting hold of proof of address and all that to be tackled. But if this could be made free and easy then my criticisms would vanish.
As you say yourself its about fairness, making sure people actually obey the law.

But what this looks like practically is like when that restaurant chain called immigration enforcement to arrest a load of their staff - or your landlord calling the police. I still generally think employers should check right to work (but nothing beyond that) and the general assumption should be if you're here you have a right to be here.

Another area we should be spending money is in projects to show just how shit the UK actually is, especially for these undocumented workers. We need more advertising about this hitting the relevant countries.

As I say this is the paradox of immigration. People who are against it think the country's so shit the only reason people could move here is to steal benefits; people who are for it think the country's so shit they can't believe anyone would actually want to move here if they knew.

Mass migration is a firstly a myth, and secondly, as usually presented, on the whole fuck all to do with refugees.

What do you mean by its a myth? The number of international migrants in both Europe and Asia has increased from under 50 million in 1990 to over 85 million in 2020, in North America from just over 27 million to almost 60 million and it's also more or less doubled in Oceania, Latin America and Africa. There has been a significant global shift in migration - as you noted.

I'd agree that shift is not broadly caused by refugees. But varies by region but there has been an increase in refugees (basically the entire increase within Latin America can be explained by Venezuelans - the second largest refugee community in the world, largely now living in neighbouring states) - and part of the reason it's not tied to refugees is that those stats don't include internally displaced people who are the largest category of refugees (ie South Sudanese living in one the UN's many camps for displaced people there). It's partly why I think it's important for the UK (and other Western countries) to try and prioritise helping those people.

Edit: Incidentally I see the Dutch, like the Germans are intending to impose "temporary" land border controls. I think this gets to the point that people need to believe there is control on the, in this case, European frontier if you want to have a more liberal approach internally. They go together.

[Sheilbh]

Separately - this will have been arranged way ahead of the election but good to see Starmer marking armistice day in France. The first time a British PM has joined a French leader in French commemorations in 80 years when Churchill and de Gaulle walked down the Champs Elysee to relight the tomb of the unknown soldier.

Also Poland starting to take steps to work with "likeminded" states on defence and support for Ukraine. By the sounds of it this is basically the UK, France, the Nordics and the Baltics to begin with. Starmer's been invited to Warsaw for talks on defence and security, the following day Tusk will be meeting with Rutte and Macron on the same issue. Interesting detail from Ben Wallace that especially after the invasion of Ukraine he pushed for the expansion of the "quad" of France, Germany, UK and US to also include Italy and Poland - and I think it is insane at this point to say anything about European security without Poland in the room. They are central.

One big country obviously not on Tusk's list. I think we can see why

Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz
@Bundeskanzler
President-elect @realDonaldTrump and I agree on wanting to work towards a return to peace in Europe. I personally congratulated him on the phone and said that Germany wants to continue its successful cooperation with the USA.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I said many children, I did not say no children.
The lie that needs to die is that we need to let them in and welcome them.
We don't. Mass migration is not a positive for our societies.

Mass migration is a firstly a myth, and secondly, as usually presented, on the whole fuck all to do with refugees.
And yes we do need to accept refugees. Both morally and legally.

mass-migration most certainly exists and its results were/are on full display in Amsterdam right now.
It has to do with refugees and the abuse of the status by economic migrants, often from cultures that can't be integrated. The result being that people are sick of the second and less willing to have the first.
There is no legal or moral obligation to accept anyone into your nation. Too much morals make for bad politics, same as no morals at all. The extreme left is not the sole arbiter of what is moral in society, something you need to quickly accept.

[Sheilbh]

Separately again - but this is about the US election but I think hugely relevant for British politics, particularly the stuff about scarcity and housing. I'd add that this is where I think there's overlap of Poilievre and Trump in turning scarcity into a political advantage for them and enabling them to reach new voters.

That should be something Labour think about at every point especially on planning reform (I think Badenoch is far better placed to try and do what Poilievre has than Jenrick) but also climate. The politics on that has to be about abundance and more (more infrastructure, nuclear, renewables providing more, cheaper and cleaner energy). And all relevant to the focus on people's lives and living standards:

Ezra Klein
@ezraklein
A few thoughts from the conversations I've been having and hearing over the last week:

The hard question isn't the 2 points that would've decided the election. It's how to build a Democratic Party that isn't always 2 points away from losing to Donald Trump — or worse.

The Democratic Party is supposed to represent the working class. If it isn't doing that, it is failing. That's true even even if it can still win elections.

Democrats don't need to build a new informational ecosystem. Dems need to show up in the informational ecosystems that already exist. They need to be natural and enthusiastic participants in these cultures. Harris should've gone on Rogan, but the damage here was done over years and wouldn't have been reversed in one October appearance.

Building a media ecosystem isn't something you do through nonprofit grants or rich donors (remember Air America?). Joe Rogan and Theo Von aren't a Koch-funded psy-op. What makes these spaces matter is that they aren't built on politics. (Democrats already win voters who pay close attention to politics.)

That there's more affinity between Democrats and the Cheneys than Democrats and the Rogans and Theo Vons of the world says a lot.

Economic populism is not just about making your economic policy more and more redistributive. People care about fairness. They admire success. People have economic identities in addition to material needs.

Trump — and in a different way, Musk — understand the identity side of this. What they share isn't that they are rich and successful, it's that they made themselves into the public's idea of what it means to be rich and successful.

Policy matters, but it has to be real to the candidate. Policy is a way candidates tell voters who they are. But people can tell what politicians really care about and what they're mouthing because it polls well.

Governing matters. If housing is more affordable, and homelessness far less of a crisis, in Texas and Florida than California and New York, that's a *huge* problem.

If people are leaving California and New York for Texas and Florida, that's a *huge* problem.

Democrats need to take seriously how much scarcity harms them. Housing scarcity became a core Trump-Vance argument against immigrants. Too little clean energy becomes the argument for rapidly building out more fossil fuels. A successful liberalism needs to believe in *and deliver* abundance of the things people need most.

That Democrats aren't trusted on the cost of living harmed them much more than any ad. If Dems want to "Sister Soulja" some part of their coalition, start with the parts that have made it so much more expensive to build and live where Democrats govern.

More than a "Sister Soulja" moment, Democrats need to rebuild a culture of saying no inside their own coalition.

Democrats don't just have to move right or left. They need to better reflect the texture of worlds they've lost touch with and those worlds are complex and contradictory.

The most important question in politics isn't whether a politician is well liked. It's whether voters think a politician — or a political coalition — likes them.

And I totally agree on the last point. Had some experience of that in post-Brexit years at left-wing things here. It's where the "sneering" stuff about "elites" comes in - and in the UK it's definitely not exclusive to the left. The Tories took at least two terms after 1997 before they started to look like a party that was basically comfortable in the country they lived in and liked its voters/the public.

[Admiral Yi]

Then there's the factor of many knowing people in the UK already thus seeing it as safer, stuff they've heard about the UK giving a fairer hearing or being better places to find work- again all core to safety.

You've pretty much defined the economic refugee.  The UN convention only talks about conditions in the country they are fleeing, not where they can get the best deal.

[Josquius]

I don't see why not.

Because you could be signing their death warrant.
"Oh, hi former prominent spokesperson from a democracy that has just been subjected to a brutal military coup where the regime is actively torturing and killing anyone remotely connected to the old government. And this is your husband and kids too? Aww lovely. But sorry. You didn't follow the correct procedures. Why you don't even have form 525-A. Straight on the next plane back to General Hon City with you."

I think it is. We're way out of the European norm. But I'd go further - UK courts have developed some wild interpretations of human rights law and parliament should correct it because it's not what was intended. I bang on about it but the restrictions on press freedom are very severe now and not what anyone was intending from putting the Article 8 right to private and family life into domestic legislation. The courts have now said (going up to the Supreme Court) that it is unlawful to report the fact that someone is under investigation by the police - and actually it is worse to do it about someone prominent than a nobody.

Neglecting the possible explanations there I see...

Another example, recently overturned on appeal thankfully, but at first instance the courts refused permission to deport a man following his prison sentence for child sexual abuse. The reason for this was the Article 8 rights of his daughter to a family life (which included her father) - despite the fact that the family courts had already banned him from contact with her because he presented a danger to her. Caught and corrected on appeal but an example of some of the very broad interpretations the courts have when applying specifically Article 8.

This sounds like a fucked up case. But then thats a fucked up case. Typical game the far right play is to present a case like this and pretend its representative of everything.
More common sense should absolutely be used, but then its hard to legislate for that as when the Tories get back in power their vision of common sense is anything but.

As I say this is the paradox of immigration. People who are against it think the country's so shit the only reason people could move here is to steal benefits; people who are for it think the country's so shit they can't believe anyone would actually want to move here if they knew.

The data is on my side, unless you've got emotional ties to the place which can overpower all else, the UK is crap :p

But no. I was speaking about the situation for refugees and illegal immigrants. Most of them do not have a great life in the UK. There's been countless reports on this over the years. A great google and I can't throw it up but I remember 10+ years ago seeing a great one about an illegal immigrant, iirc from Pakistan, living in London.

I remember when I was in Rwanda one discussion I had with some guys there, teachers at one of the top high schools in the country. They seemed to have a pretty nice life with big houses, animals, they didn't say outright but I suspect a servant or two (certainly from other discussions with Africans I know this is normal for middle class people in much of SS-Africa).
But they were a bit jealous of the Europeans.
They knew that wages in the UK were a certain amount which was so much more than what they earned. Many of them dreamed of getting another job. They had this idea that in Europe jobs grew on trees and that £1000 in the UK was the same as £1000 in Rwanda.
If even these educated, pretty high level people from a pretty stable and rapidly developing country can get this idea...Then where does that leave some kid in the slums of Lagos?

I seriously do think we could get some huge value for money investing in projects to educate these people about the reality of the UK, to fight against social media selling the dream,.

What do you mean by its a myth? The number of international migrants in both Europe and Asia has increased from under 50 million in 1990 to over 85 million in 2020, in North America from just over 27 million to almost 60 million and it's also more or less doubled in Oceania, Latin America and Africa. There has been a significant global shift in migration - as you noted.

Mass migration is a dog whistle term. Its designed to call to mind the image from the brexit campaign posters of the vast hordes swarming in. Probably with some sort of nefarious organising mind above it.
We live in a more global world. Mass migration is not a good way to describe this.

But what this looks like practically is like when that restaurant chain called immigration enforcement to arrest a load of their staff - or your landlord calling the police. I still generally think employers should check right to work (but nothing beyond that) and the general assumption should be if you're here you have a right to be here.

I'd agree with your the assumption should be that if you're here you have a right to BE here.
We don't want the police randomly stopping on the street anyone they think looks a bit foreign.
But when it comes to key events of people who LIVE here- thats when I do think we need tighter controls, ID, etc...
This is basically how things tend to work in most developed countries I find. I've never been randomly stopped and asked for my ID (though white privilege there of course) but certainly did go through a lot crossing borders (that bullshit getting into Japan from Korea....), applying for flats, jobs, etc...

mass-migration most certainly exists and its results were/are on full display in Amsterdam right now.
It has to do with refugees and the abuse of the status by economic migrants, often from cultures that can't be integrated. The result being that people are sick of the second and less willing to have the first.
There is no legal or moral obligation to accept anyone into your nation. Too much morals make for bad politics, same as no morals at all. The extreme left is not the sole arbiter of what is moral in society, something you need to quickly accept.

Amsterdam?
Most of the foreigners you see there are tourists dear. Thats the problem they're having with foreigners.

Economic refugees posing as refugees is a problem yes. But just saying "Right, no refugees!" isn't a solution there.
Cultures that can't be integrated is not a real problem. Thats dog whistle nonsense.

I 100% agree the extreme left isn't the sole arbiter of what is moral in society... which is convenient as they're completely powerless in our modern society.  FYI I'm very much from the moderate left; also a pretty powerless group in 2024. We live in a world where the rules are very much dictated by the right.

Then there's the factor of many knowing people in the UK already thus seeing it as safer, stuff they've heard about the UK giving a fairer hearing or being better places to find work- again all core to safety.

You've pretty much defined the economic refugee.  The UN convention only talks about conditions in the country they are fleeing, not where they can get the best deal.

The UN also says nothing about "You have to choose a country where you'll have a shit life". People have the right to claim asylum anywhere.
Think about it logically and it makes sense. So things go bad and you have to flee, where do you go...oh, you speak Spanish and have an uncle in Madrid so it makes sense to go there rather than Germany which would be a completely alien land to you.
The mistake you're making here is assuming there's some big divide between economics and safety.

[Admiral Yi]

The UN also says nothing about "You have to choose a country where you'll have a shit life". People have the right to claim asylum anywhere.
Think about it logically and it makes sense. So things go bad and you have to flee, where do you go...oh, you speak Spanish and have an uncle in Madrid so it makes sense to go there rather than Germany which would be a completely alien land to you.
The mistake you're making here is assuming there's some big divide between economics and safety.

I agree.  The UN Convention lays no obligation on the asylum seeker.  Neither does it grant them the right to choose their destination.

I've been thinking logically this whole thread.  No need to begin now.  Obviously it would be more convenient for guy going to Spain.  The UN Convention doesn't mention the convenience of the asylum seeker either, except after the asylum seeker has presented himself and made a claim.

There is a big gulf between economics and a well grounded fear of persecution.  I can be poor and get tortured by the secret police, and I can be poor and not be tortured by the secret police.  I can end up in a shit country, be poor and not be tortured by the secret police.  And there I no longer have a well grounded fear of persecution.  The reason I was going to provide to your authorities as the rationale for allowing me in no longer exists.

[Josquius]

The UN also says nothing about "You have to choose a country where you'll have a shit life". People have the right to claim asylum anywhere.
Think about it logically and it makes sense. So things go bad and you have to flee, where do you go...oh, you speak Spanish and have an uncle in Madrid so it makes sense to go there rather than Germany which would be a completely alien land to you.
The mistake you're making here is assuming there's some big divide between economics and safety.

I agree.  The UN Convention lays no obligation on the asylum seeker.  Neither does it grant them the right to choose their destination.

I've been thinking logically this whole thread.  No need to begin now.  Obviously it would be more convenient for guy going to Spain.  The UN Convention doesn't mention the convenience of the asylum seeker either, except after the asylum seeker has presented himself and made a claim.

No, the bit that says the right to claim asylum is a human right and signatories of the convention guarantee this right, which says that people have the right to claim in any of those signatories.

https://www.asileproject.eu/the-right-to-choose-country-of-asylum-the-1951-convention-and-the-eus-temporary-protection-directive/

That international law on refugees is outdated and in need of reform is a very valid argument to make. Though that countries should just unilaterally decide to go against it and stop accepting refugees is not.

There is a big gulf between economics and a well grounded fear of persecution.  I can be poor and get tortured by the secret police, and I can be poor and not be tortured by the secret police.  I can end up in a shit country, be poor and not be tortured by the secret police.  And there I no longer have a well grounded fear of persecution.  The reason I was going to provide to your authorities as the rationale for allowing me in no longer exists.

There really isn't a big gulf though.
As you say there's nothing stopping someone being poor AND oppressed by the state.

Its pretty inarguable that having fled the government hit squads you might feel safer in one country where you've family who understand the ins and outs and can look after you, than in another where you'll be basically a prisoner, only with less torture than home, and could be sent back at any moment.
Its also a reality that countries which are richer also tend to better follow the rule of law, have press freedom, LGBT rights, etc... and other things that might make someone need to become a refugee. Again, can't really blame genuine refugees for making the treck to Europe.

You could also go on to defining how much oppression is enough. What about those folks in the USSR who weren't disappeared but were forbidden from practicing their professional roles and relegated to being cleaners?
None of this is a simple black and white situation. Everything in a person's life is interlinked.
Its precisely that it is a messy and complex situation which allows pure economic scammers to try and pass themselves off as refugees. Contrary to what the nutters of the world say nobody serious actually wants total open borders for anyone. They just want the law followed and under this its quite a complex matter to tell apart the real refugees and those pretending.