I agree that safe routes are the solution. Measured, controlled and a hell of a lot cheaper. More enforcement = fewer deaths and. It also means a quota can be agreed.

…whether they qualify for entry. Those who cooperate with examination on arrival should not be arrested (unless they need to be transported to a location for processing under the 1971 Act) and may be treated as arriving passengers.”

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/u...

“To sum up, those who make landfall on beaches, or any other uncontrolled area of coastline may be arrested for having entered illegally if they were seek to escape from or evade immigration officers or constables who seek to lawfully question them about their means of arrival and…

I doubt your intention is to mislead, but as journalists, I’m sure you are tenacious in being correct in all you broadcast.

The relevant guidance is here on page 6 and is summarised thus:

There is no written law that states that crossing the channel itself is illegal.
This is very important because asylum seekers are persistently referred to as “illegals” when they are not. There has been no illegal entry and a lodged asylum application gives legal leave to remain.

I’ve just listened to this podcast and I’m disappointed to hear you referring to people “illegally crossing” the Channel and “arriving illegally”. Home Office guidance for “Irregular or unlawful entry and arrival” makes clear that those arriving on small boats do not enter illegally

Oh, I don’t know. I mean it’s not like someone says “burn the hotels” and people go and do it. At all.

Yes! I am so tired of pointing out that they are not in the French asylum system.

You did well there, but they never let you make your points. It was just full on rhetoric.

Look at my Tootie girl! 😍

I can’t believe a) the density of not realising the restriction on FOM and b) continuing to support the architect of Brexit! Density Level: Set

Why Keir Starmer Is Wrong About Immigration In an interview with Byline TV, migration researcher and campaigner Zoe Gardner dispels misconceptions about immigration, and its political currency at the ballot box

🔴Why Keir Starmer Is Wrong About Immigration

In an interview with Byline TV, migration researcher and campaigner @zoejardiniere.bsky.social dispels misconceptions about immigration, and its political currency at the ballot box

www.bylinesupplement.com/p/why-keir-s...

Well, it has to be this: youtu.be/bf725n9KILA?...

White text on orange background reads "migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, newcomers are all welcome here"

After a week of appalling language and attacks on migrants' rights, share this if the politicians who try to divide our communities don't speak for you.

We are not strangers. We welcome newcomers, we share and learn, we build new bonds - and we always will.

I never claimed otherwise. I simply corrected your terminology.

As much as you are desperate to attach a label you like to asylum seekers, you cannot. Accept it and move on.

Incorrect. If people cannot prove persecution, they become a failed asylum seeker. People are identified by the action they take and the immigration status given. Not intention.

Evidently they don’t, since asylum seekers are repeatedly and erroneously referred to as ‘illegal immigrants’. Asylum seekers cannot, by definition, be economic migrants. A decision on their claim designates them as either refugees or failed asylum seekers.

Refugees and asylum-seekers: UK policy In 2021, the government said that “as a force for good in the world” the UK would remain “sensitive to the plight of refugees and asylum-seekers”. It stated it had a “proud track record” of protecting...

“A person who claims asylum has the legal right to remain in the UK while their application is considered.”

lordslibrary.parliament.uk/refugees-and...

Spot on!

@maitlis.bsky.social please, please address this nonsense about “they aren’t asylum seekers”. For too long the Tories got away with it, now Reform are. People who apply for asylum have LEGAL LEAVE TO REMAIN. Neither are they economic migrants. This false claim has to be challenged.

Oh my God Emily! How did you keep your cool with that arrogant, patronising, misogynistic, racist, lying, absolute FUCK!

The plumber needs to pipe down.

Push the central clip in and try pulling and twisting the bottom part at the same time

No I didn’t. A cap on claims, not decisions isn’t a breach of the RC

You’re basing this on your prediction, not facts.

The point is that seeking asylum is a human right that the UK has signed up to defend through the Refugee Convention. You cannot simultaneously commit to being obligated to consider asylum claims, yet have measures in place that actively prevent people from doing so.

Not really - because the whole point is that it enables a cap. Why the previous government didn’t have a cap is beyond me.

And so not all asylum seekers want to come to the UK either. Safe routes would enable an effective way to set a cap and speed up deportations.

Videos of Trump-esque removals? Raids? Deliberate conflation of asylum seekers and illegal workers? Come on.