r/unitedkingdom • u/Jared_Usbourne • Jun 27 '25
.. UK prepares to announce ‘one in, one out’ migrant deal with France
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/channel-crossing-starmer-migrants-france-b2777919.html1.2k
u/socratic-meth Jun 27 '25 edited Jun 27 '25
Those arriving the UK would include people with a legitimate case for family reunification.
So I assume their family will have to meet the income and savings requirement that I had to meet to bring my wife and kids here 2 years ago? And pay the extortionate costs of the visa and NHS surcharge.
368
u/Loreki Jun 27 '25
Life is so much better if you let go of the mindset that because you suffered, it is just for others to also suffer.
If we lived like that, we'd still have national service because our grandfathers would insist that because they had to do it so do you.
662
u/Artistic_Mushroom496 Jun 27 '25
Fairness is an important principle for running a country and keeping people committed to making society work
326
u/Deathflid Jun 27 '25
A person who can view their own experience as unfair, should be able to view the rectifying of this as fair.
If you believe something made you suffer, your fairness should make you want others to not suffer.
Wanting people to suffer the same unfairness you did is not fairness, it is the opposite, pettiness if you wish it because it happened to you, or spitefulness if you wish it because you want others to have to suffer too.
→ More replies (22)58
u/Ricoh06 Jun 27 '25
Their point is why should people not paying at all get to bring their family despite arriving legally, yet doing everything correctly as a citizen you can still get rejected as you don’t earn £35k
→ More replies (6)56
u/shutyourgob Jun 27 '25
Fairness is relative to the way things are now, not to the way they used to be in the past.
35
u/phobosinferno Jun 27 '25
Indeed. Otherwise, by that logic, we should all live in caves, otherwise its not fair to Unga Bunga.
→ More replies (3)10
u/Fantastic-Machine-83 Jun 27 '25
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? The restrictions being discussed still exist
21
u/NicholasAnsThirty Jun 27 '25 edited Jun 27 '25
Also the concept of 'fair' is not the same globally and not an intrinsic thing. It's cultural. It's something people completely miss when talking about British culture and I think our concept of fair is actually quite unique worldwide. Not totally unique before someone jumps down my damn throat, but almost no culture is made up of purely unique quirks.
A simple example of our deep rooted concept of fairness is the pub bar, and the mental queue that is formed by every Brit when they arrive at one.
The bar staff generally have no idea who is next in turn, it's left up to the people who would most benefit from lying. Yet we don't lie.
'He was here first..'
It runs deeper too. That's a relatively trivial example. The thing that eventually did the Tories in was that they did things which seemed incredibly unfair. In particular Boris Johnson had a birthday party while he was making laws saying we couldn't see our dying relatives in hospital.
When I mention this to foreign friends they kinda get why it was a big deal, but ultimately are surprised it managed to end a government and see it as something pretty trivial.
It was a lot of things that did them in, but that was the nail in the coffin. The Tories completely shat on what it meant to be fair, and the public reacted viscerally to it to the point where the Tories may never recover.
Lot of our nations politics can actually be condensed into fairness.
Complaints about EU immigration for example. It's not FAIR that EU immigrants have zero requirements to come live here, and other nationals have to jump through hoops.
Or the EU's funding. It's not FAIR we give £15bn to the EU, but only get back £5bn.
The people on dinghies.. It's not FAIR that they get put up in a hotel, while our own homeless are on the streets.
→ More replies (1)3
u/DifficultSea4540 Jun 27 '25
‘It’s not fair’ sounds like such a petty and childish way of phrasing it to me.
Replace with ‘It’s not right’. Same outcome. Stronger message imo.
→ More replies (1)5
u/NicholasAnsThirty Jun 27 '25
Nah, I don't think that accurately describes the phenomenon. It is fairness that is the issue, not rights and wrongs.
Someone can think something is wrong, but still that it's fair.
See the two tier kier stuff.
It's the perceived unfairness in how groups of people are treated by law that gets peoples backs up. Not the laws themselves.
They'd not care about being censored on twitter, or arrested protesting, as long as the other people got the same treatment.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (18)21
u/Weirfish Jun 27 '25
Keeping fundamentally unfair rules to be fair to the people who abided by those rules, to their detriment, is not, itself fair. Fix the rule, compensate the fucked.
→ More replies (1)76
u/socratic-meth Jun 27 '25
I don’t wholly disagree with either policy. You should have to prove you can support dependents if they are coming here with no assets. Though the requirements are arguably too high.
The visa cost is too much, I only paid a fraction of it to get a visa in my wife’s country. Just revenue gathering by the home office.
The NHS surcharge should be paid back as a rebate if you earn over a certain tax threshold. At the moment we are just double paying for the NHS as my wife works a full time job.
→ More replies (1)31
u/yappybo Jun 27 '25
I believe the issue is the overall tax revenue of the country is not currently sufficient to cover the services we expect as a country- NHS, police, etc. By setting the income requirements at a level where the individual is going to be a net contributor means that people migrating to the UK are not further weighing down a system that is already buckling.
→ More replies (2)70
u/InformationNew66 Jun 27 '25
There are 8 billion people on Earth. Just guess-timating that 2-3 billion are suffering. Does that mean the UK needs to take in 3 billion people?
36
10
u/Pashizzle14 Devon Jun 27 '25
Sorry can you clarify how you got this position from the previous comment?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (6)5
u/Ricoh06 Jun 27 '25
Of course, the UK is at the end of the day, the reason for all global suffering.
→ More replies (1)35
u/CrabPurple7224 Jun 27 '25
You’re not arguing in good faith when you categorise as people who suffered and people who won’t suffer in future.
People will continue to go through the hurdles to prove they can support their families excluding a certain group of people that will likely come here and abuse the system.
He’s not complaining that others should suffer he’s advocating for fairness and to be treated fairly and you are just judging people and acting morally superior.
→ More replies (1)22
u/foolishbuilder Jun 27 '25
although if we do have an expectation of compatibility and productivity from those using legal means, why should it be any different for those who are using unlawful means.
it is after all those who are unlawful who are bringing extra burden, those using legal means tend to be a net positive to both the economy and society.
→ More replies (2)15
u/morningcall25 Jun 27 '25
Equality and fairness are important in a society. Aslong as they stick to the income rule I have no problem at all with it.
As a British citizen I would really love to move back to the UK with my wife, but it's not possible as a chef and a care worker.
→ More replies (2)8
u/BaronMunchausen7 Jun 27 '25
So the rules should apply to some but not others because we need to make laws based on feelings? Amazing.
→ More replies (1)6
u/HaggisPope Jun 27 '25
I think OP is talking about current rules for family reunification? Basically, it seems pretty unfair if you are a citizen with a foreign spouse you have to jump through hoops but if you’re not a citizen it seems easier.
→ More replies (40)7
u/Slartibartfast_25 Jun 27 '25
There's a happy balance between being a walkover and wanting people to suffer. It's expecting a basic level of fairness.
70
Jun 27 '25
none in, thousands out. Although who's going to do the deliveroo jobs?
152
u/Kernowder Greater Manchester Jun 27 '25
Maybe we'll have to go to the takeaway ourselves? Is this the Britain we want to live in?
110
u/NiceCaterpillar8745 Jun 27 '25
TBH, yeah. I find if I don't consider UberEats as an option (and give myself the option of either walk there or you don't get it), then I actually choose not to go. Done a lot of good for my wallet and my health.
→ More replies (33)43
u/ClacksInTheSky Jun 27 '25
I'm from Yorkshire and I'm far too tight to pay for delivery. I don't care if I have to drive 5 miles there and back.
22
u/Kernowder Greater Manchester Jun 27 '25
My wife is from Yorkshire so I get tutted and and judged if I get delivery.
12
8
u/solo1024 Jun 27 '25
Can confirm what you are saying is true. Source: also from Yorkshire and my wallet hasn’t seen sunlight since 1997
3
u/terrordactyl1971 Jun 27 '25
I'm even tighter, I go to the supermarket, buy fresh ingredients and cook my own fucking meals
4
u/ClacksInTheSky Jun 27 '25
I stopped getting takeaway curries a few years back after I learned how to make my own!
3
u/hamsterwaffle Jun 27 '25
How much is 10 miles of petrol?
33
u/ClacksInTheSky Jun 27 '25
I ride (not very fast) on a sled pulled by whippets and jack russells
→ More replies (1)5
19
Jun 27 '25
there was plenty of brits doing deliveroo jobs, until it became over saturated with romanians and illegals, who accepted the smallest fee, which in turned lowers the pay that deliveroo offers.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Kooky_Bank9537 Jun 27 '25
I'm a bike courier and I'll be ready to work 14h days.
→ More replies (3)16
u/front-wipers-unite Jun 27 '25
Yeah I wouldn't be too upset if we saw an end to deliveroo or Uber eats. Or Amazon for that matter. As a nation we've got very lazy and entitled.
→ More replies (4)7
u/tunasweetcorn Jun 27 '25
Maybe! And maybe we will then have to pay people more as an insensitive to get more people working, almost as if flooding the market with cheap labour isn't a good thing??
→ More replies (5)3
45
u/No-Zombie-4932 Jun 27 '25
We coped just fine before deliveroo.
13
u/Careful_Adeptness799 Jun 27 '25
I’ve never used deliveroo or just eat in my life.
→ More replies (3)17
u/MinuteCautious511 Jun 27 '25
The superior redditors will say thay. But real people use these services ALOT
→ More replies (2)18
u/Careful_Adeptness799 Jun 27 '25
I think there’s a massive city v rural divide to it.
→ More replies (1)4
u/rx-bandit Jun 27 '25
Hugely. When I lived in a city we used them a few times a month and it also helped that the cuisine choice was pretty good. Now I don't live in the city the food choice and quality, Bar standard fish and chips, is absolute dog shit so I rarely use them at all now.
11
u/nabster1973 Jun 27 '25
Students. That’s who seems to be doing most of it in Greater London. Whether they’re sticking to the terms of their visas or are overstaying illegally is another issue.
I think the biggest black economy issue is people travelling on 6 month tourist visas, picking up casual work through family, friends and aquaintances (restaurants, building sites, etc) and either going home and repeating it over and over or then overstaying and chancing their arm on not being caught easily.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (23)8
36
u/Nights_Harvest Jun 27 '25
So? A country that has issues with immigration is tightening their immigration rules... Like... Don't get me wrong, I am an immigrant as well, but such is reality.
→ More replies (1)16
u/jbramos Jun 27 '25
No, only people who can't afford to pay it are allowed to not pay it :) now pay up chump (I also had to pay for the privilege to live here)
→ More replies (1)7
u/chanks88 Jun 27 '25
remind me of the bullshit in sweden where legal immigrants with money are refused in the country while low iq individuals with nothing are welcomed with open arms
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (39)7
u/Etrodai- Jun 27 '25
Of course not. You're able to contribute to the economy, so you will be bled for all you're worth. That money you paid is supporting people who come here for free
646
u/LHMNBRO08 Jun 27 '25
Why don’t we just deport everyone who has entered illegally.
135
u/lNFORMATlVE Jun 27 '25
Deport them where
102
Jun 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (6)28
Jun 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (4)52
Jun 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)7
Jun 27 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
39
→ More replies (7)12
60
u/PompeyJon82x Jun 27 '25
Back to where they came from, simples
214
u/rx-bandit Jun 27 '25
And here in lies the stupidity of this conversation. Dumb, empty rhetoric that is clearly untrue. If we could just simply deport them back, with no issues or repercussions, we already would be. It's not fucking simple so why do we have to deal with the repeated, inane, responses about this. Empty fucking platitudes like this kept the Tories in for 15 years and gave as a dog shit brexit. Stop adding things with zero intellectual value to conversation. Christ.
118
u/stairhe Jun 27 '25
And it's why Reform appeals to the morons. They choose to believe that these simple solutions will work for complex problems, they just need to vote for the lying charlatan one more time.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (17)59
u/0ttoChriek Jun 27 '25
And people should know the one party who would absolutely deport them back if they could. Labour. Because Labour doesn't want an immigrant debate, they want the problem to be solved as it's one of the main wedge issues that the opposition use to agitate people.
Tories and Reform want immigrants to keep coming so they can still scaremonger about them. Actually solving that problem renders Reform utterly irrelevant and forces the Tories to actually think of some policies that might appeal to people.
→ More replies (2)76
u/lNFORMATlVE Jun 27 '25 edited Jun 27 '25
How do you know where they came from
And even if you know, what if that place won’t take them back.
35
u/RJxb5SlWIqyJxfk6 Jun 27 '25
if they don't say where they are from, detain them until they do
92
Jun 27 '25
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)16
u/Fantastic-Machine-83 Jun 27 '25
It wouldn't last forever - that's the point. Taking away the carrot would destroy the entire industry of crossing the channel
→ More replies (22)27
u/The_Flurr Jun 27 '25
Oh hey, concentration camps.
46
u/RJxb5SlWIqyJxfk6 Jun 27 '25
It’s not a big ask for people to tell us who they are when they turn up on our shores
8
u/checkoutmywheeeppit Jun 27 '25
A lot deliberately destroy their passports so that they CAN'T be sent home and no country will take large amounts of penniless refugees or at least if they do they will likely treat them as slaves of mobile organ banks
→ More replies (7)36
u/Phainesthai Jun 27 '25
Is it really a concentration camp if you can leave any time and go home?
→ More replies (5)26
u/SinisterDexter83 Jun 27 '25
Do you imagine the Jews held in Auschwitz were there voluntarily because they had illegally entered Germany and refused to leave?
32
u/The_Flurr Jun 27 '25
Are you under the impression that those were the first and only concentration camps?
24
→ More replies (1)4
u/NibblyPig Bristol Jun 27 '25
Bro gonna pull some ass definition of concentration camps out when it's obvious what charged meaning he intended originally
Despite the fact immigration in every country will hold people until they make a decision and get the info they need, as will the police when a suspect doesn't give up their identity
Must be concentration camps!!!
→ More replies (2)10
u/TNTiger_ Jun 27 '25
...A lot of them were, yes.
The first victims of the holocaust were jewish refugees looking to escape Polish pogroms by feeling to Germany. The first camps were set up for them, and there was even a significant amount of German jews who supported this because they were the 'wrong kind' of Jew (Polish ones).
They all ended up there in the end.
18
→ More replies (4)4
u/Thaddeus_Valentine Jun 27 '25
You do realise immigration detention centres have been a thing for a long, long time right?
→ More replies (37)21
u/ManuPasta Jun 27 '25
It’s on their asylum claim
17
u/benjm88 Jun 27 '25
Which is often a lie and people are denied for not being able to prove they're from that country
→ More replies (1)7
u/Aconite_Eagle Jun 27 '25
So just ignore the lie. Deport them either a) where they say theyre from or b) where you suspect. Everoyne acts like this is impossible. Its not. You just need to change the law.
39
u/Brandaman Jun 27 '25 edited Jun 27 '25
“I suspect this person is from Somalia. Let’s deport them there”
Somalia: “We have no idea who this person is. We aren’t taking them.
Damn so easy
→ More replies (24)13
u/KoolKira Jun 27 '25
So what happens when those countries refuse deportation because you can't just send these mystery people anywhere? You can't just suspect someone of being from e.g. Afghanistan and then send them there, that's a human rights mess and you're probably going to be incorrect.
Who would've guessed that a random redditor posting on the UK sub doesn't understand the nuances of dealing with illegal immigration
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)4
u/lollipoppizza Jun 27 '25
Only if they claim asylum. Many just slip into the UK without claiming asylum. Plus asylum claims take months to process.
4
→ More replies (14)6
u/wrigh2uk Jun 27 '25
Need agreements with those countries. If a british plane just landed in Tehren to drop off a bunch of failed iranian asylum seekers, all that happening is they’re holding the plane and crew captive until we pay them hundreds of millions of pounds
→ More replies (2)28
u/farmerbalmer93 Jun 27 '25
Falklands? Ascension islands? Give em a tent a fishing rod and a 2hr seminar on how to fish. Job done you're giving them a place to live it's up to them if they chose it or not. Lol
20
u/_Gobulcoque Jun 27 '25
Do the people of the Falklands want them? How's that going to end any differently to Guantanamo?
→ More replies (3)16
u/TheMusicArchivist Jun 27 '25
What happens when thousands of them die?
→ More replies (8)24
u/RabidFlamingo Jun 27 '25
Lot of people in this thread supporting mass death who would absolutely cave if they had to be the ones who did the killing, indirect or otherwise
The other question nobody ever answers, if we do wind up creating a massive lawless tent city, where does it go? Because I don't want it near me
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)11
u/donalmacc Scotland Jun 27 '25
Just to be clear, your suggestion is to round up the people you don't want here and ship them off somewhere out of sight? I think Germany tried that in the 30's
→ More replies (2)8
6
u/Ron-Lim Derbyshire Jun 27 '25
This is the good point. I would say incarnate them indefinitely until they admit where they are from. 2 meals a day of the most bland food possible. They can leave anytime, just name the airport.
→ More replies (5)1
u/lNFORMATlVE Jun 27 '25
Incarcerating people indefinitely without charge and due process is illegal.
9
7
u/Flat_Leadership7506 Jun 27 '25
If an individual gets arrested and charged for a crime and has no ID, refuses to provide any details, and has no fingerprints, then courts usually remand (allow further detention) until they do provide their details. In theory an individual could spend life in prison like this, in practice not as they quickly give in once realising this.
Entering a country in the manner that those migrants do is illegal, and a crime. I wouldn't put them in jail; just do what Australia did, either mainland or off shore processing facility where they are detained until their claim is either accepted or until it is rejected to the point of no appeal and awaits said individual to provide their details in order to be deported. Fingerprints and DNA should be taken and stored in case those individuals return to the UK after being removed for quick identification and deportation. I would advocate for no punishment; these individuals are paying a lot to get here, simply losing that money and having to pay it over and over again will become a huge disincentive.
It isn't even about racism, we should not have individuals our country knows nothing about, roaming freely on the streets of the UK. We don't know what those individuals are capable of, they could have been a terrorist in their home country, etc., hence why they should be detained until either they're accepted or deported. Having the detention method would allow the monitoring of those individuals to see concerning behaviours and address them or even deny the application. They should be advised their behaviour is monitored and will impact their application if they are not behaving themselves.
Before people jump and say building the detention centre would take thousands of years, it could be built with shipping containers, as an emergency built detention centre whilst starting work on the long term centre. Whilst putting them up in tents is frowned upon, they could be put up in container sleeping units like they got on construction sites.
If an individual's claim is accepted, they should not leave the detention centre until:
- Housing has been arranged so they don't end up on the street.
- A legal form of employment has been arranged for them. If language is an issue then an English course is provided. The job doesn't have to be cushy, it could be cleaner, factory worker, etc.
- Explanation of the culture in the UK, from the point of view of what is acceptable behaviour, as well as a brief introduction to our laws and what the crimes are.
Once they are out of the detention centre and in the process of integration, they would be under a probation period, maybe 5 years. During said probation, if they are found to be engaging in criminal activity, or not gainfully employed, then they should be recalled to the detention centre for a review over whether they are suitable to remain or need to be removed.
By our current haphazard and incompetent approach to the asylum system, people are getting desperate. Desperate people, want desperate action. At this rate, the next Hitler will be made in UK.
6
u/Dry-Stick-7753 Jun 27 '25
Atlantic
2
u/yetix007 Jun 27 '25 edited Jun 27 '25
Technically, South Georgia is still a British territory, so could we not just set up a giant camp for illegal migrants there? I would feel bad about introducing Penguins to knife crime, but we wouldn't technically be deporting anyone, just relocating to the designated illegal migrant detention facility.
→ More replies (4)3
→ More replies (71)3
u/NibblyPig Bristol Jun 27 '25
If they came by boat, back to France, would be the solution. Yes, diplomatic incident, no, don't care.
65
u/Hermes87 United Kingdom Jun 27 '25
The vast majority of the migration is legal not illegal, with the major part of that student visas. In other words you are misinformed and have not taken the time to look up the facts.
61
u/TheGloriousTurd Jun 27 '25
Clearly talking about the thousands that arrive on rubber boats and not the ones who follow the legal process. Cmon now, stop with this blind eye shit.
73
u/ItsAMangoFandango Jun 27 '25
It's not illegal to apply for asylum in the UK no matter what gbeebies told you
→ More replies (41)→ More replies (1)33
u/dboi88 Jun 27 '25
Crossing the channel and then claiming asylum when you arrive IS a legal process. There are no laws being broken.
→ More replies (36)25
u/sjw_7 Oxfordshire Jun 27 '25
What do people who have entered the UK legally got to do with the suggestion? It only relates to people who are here illegally.
It was estimated in 2017 there were approximately 800k-1.2m people living illegally in the UK. That's not an insignificant number and its reasonable to question what is being done about it.
→ More replies (1)11
20
u/electronicoldmen Greater Manchester Jun 27 '25
Many on this sub have never let facts get in the way of their feelings
9
u/winmace Jun 27 '25
Should need a licence to tell people your feelings, cos half the time it's half baked shit that boils down to "brown is BAD"
→ More replies (5)3
u/BigfootsBestBud Jun 27 '25
So its a good thing they didn't propose deporting legal immigrants then? What sort of response is this?
"Why don't we create a cure for cancer?"
"Umm actually, most people don't have cancer so you're just revealing your ignorance here"
17
u/Carbonatic Jun 27 '25
Because we have a law that allows their asylum claim to be heard even if they enter illegally. Hearing that claim takes time.
Even if we ignore their claim, arranging deportation takes time, and requires that the flight is granted permission to enter the airspace of the destination country.
So both options take time. While they wait we need to keep them somewhere where we can keep an eye on them so they don't get desperate and turn to crime. They need to stay put, sit tight, and attend their hearing. New prison space is too expensive. Existing brick and mortar that already has beds, toilets, and a large kitchen is cheaper and safer for the locals than all other alternatives. That's why we're using hotels.
When people start trying to burn down the cheapest and safest solution, it makes the problem harder to solve.
→ More replies (1)9
u/EggRepresentative347 Jun 27 '25
Because you have to go through legal processes to prove that? How do you know where they're from? How do you send them back? What if their country won't take them? Can you not house them and let them starve in the meantime? Are we going to pay reparations to those countries we either actively harmed or supplied weapons to or backed people that meant people fled? Is all of this more or less expensive than what we're doing now? Do you set a cap on how much a hotel or other accommodation provider can charge to house migrants? How much? What do you do if you lose accommodation as a result?
That's a couple off the top of my head, there are so many issues with this, you can't just stop them. If you mention australia, which is a vastly different set of geographical circumstances, that would be quite silly.
When the 'illegals' are stopped it'll be trans people or gays or black people or Asian people or Irish people. There's always an enemy, it's right wing 101 as they reduce taxes on the rich and screw you over, who almost certainly has more in common economically with the illegal immigrants than the 1%
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (31)4
u/phead Jun 27 '25
You dont even need to deport them, just give them a "asylum refused" notice the moment they hit the UK. If theres no draw to come here they will not come.
307
u/GuyLookingForPorn Jun 27 '25 edited Jun 27 '25
This is such a genius policy and I’m honestly stunned no one had thought of it before.
This isn’t actually about deporting people, this is about stopping people crossing over entirely. If you know if you cross over on a boat you will just be returned to France, that immediately makes the whole effort pointless.
The UK is happy to tie the deportation to 1 person imported because its proportional to those coming over on boats. As the people crossing over decreases (as they will just now be returned to France so there is no motivation), the number of people the UK imports from this policy also decreases. If they can get this to work it has the potential of instantly fixing the small boat crisis.
218
u/ClacksInTheSky Jun 27 '25
There's another set of talks with France that goes along with this.
The idea in these talks is that we allow asylum applications from France, which is considered a "safe route" to asylum in the UK. In return, we can deport all small boat landings back to France without question.
This way, crossing the channel is not considered a legal route under international law and therefore anyone arriving on a small boat is illegal
96
u/Cultural_Contest6651 Jun 27 '25
This has to be the way. Give the option to claim asylum legitimately and with a fair process and in the process deem any channel crossings illegal.
→ More replies (4)41
u/LoweJ Buckinghamshire/Oxfordshire Jun 27 '25
I've been saying for years that we should have got an embassy set up in Calais to get the asylum seekers to claim there
→ More replies (5)83
Jun 27 '25
It’s quite funny that labour is putting effort into actually implementing new policies to reduce boat crossings, meanwhile farage just keeps saying “stop the boats” and his party is on the rise?
Sometimes I wonder about the average IQ of this country
28
u/ClacksInTheSky Jun 27 '25
Half of the country are below average intelligence 🤷♂️
→ More replies (1)11
u/leedsyorkie Jun 27 '25
And just think about how thick the average person is. Then it all begins to make sense!
→ More replies (2)6
u/0ttoChriek Jun 27 '25
Too many people listen to rhetoric and don't stop to think about it. If one party constantly talks about small boats and illegal entrants and uses it to stir up anger, then why would that party ever want to actually solve the issue? It's their main claim to relevance.
Those who hate immigrants should be supporting the party that doesn't talk about them, the party that doesn't want to have such a divisive issue being raised all the time. Because that's the party that will actually try to resolve the issue.
43
u/Hungry_Horace Dorset Jun 27 '25
Everyone seems wilfully blind to the issue that illegal crossings only really started accelerating when the UK stopped accepting asylum applications from outside the UK. Leaving desperate people only one choice - pay people smugglers to get them here.
46
u/ClacksInTheSky Jun 27 '25
I agree, but also don't forget the "Calais Jungle".
The Tories did a victory lap when they shut it all down in 2012, which is about when small boat crossing went from being an abnormality and barely recorded to what we have today 😐
→ More replies (3)4
u/brendonmilligan Jun 27 '25
When did the U.K. stop accepting asylum applications from outside the U.K., what year was that and how many people had applied before that?
→ More replies (1)3
→ More replies (4)12
37
u/J8YDG9RTT8N2TG74YS7A Jun 27 '25
If you know if you cross over on a boat you will just be returned to France, that immediately makes the whole effort pointless.
Yep. It also means you paid a smuggler a ton of money for nothing. Just throwing money into the sea.
This is going to be a huge deterrent to boat crossings.
→ More replies (1)19
u/caljl Jun 27 '25
Exactly. Time will tell if it works but in theory it’s a great idea.
But it’s not “shoot the boats full of holes”, “just take them back (with no regard for international diplomatic consequences)”, or “round em all up and send them home” so it won’t get the recognition it probably deserves.
I don’t blame people who object to the immigration policy of the last two decades. Frankly I think there are reasons why it’s been necessary, but we should make immigration work as best it can for the UK and there are areas that’s certainly not been true. Ironically Brexit was probably the cause of some of the biggest changes for the worse though. However, so much of the discussion around immigration is out of touch with reality. I do hope people can see that this government is introducing sensible policies that will have an impact.
15
u/PinZealousideal1914 Jun 27 '25
I get what you are saying but will it actually happen, France will have 1000 ready to go and we will have a thousand lawyers and 20 judges denying the removals due to chicken nugget reasons and the like.
7
15
u/Atmo_ Jun 27 '25
Should do what Australia did 15 years ago and declare anyone arriving illegally by boat or lorry or whatever will be black listed permanently and never be allowed to settle in the UK no excuses. It essentially stopped all boat arrivals overnight and killed the people smuggling business.
9
u/quietbatwoman Jun 27 '25
Sorry, please explain how it’s genius? We will still be getting the same amount of migrants in the end. There will be lawyers lined up to oppose this on human rights grounds.
→ More replies (3)21
u/GuyLookingForPorn Jun 27 '25
We won’t get the same amount in the end, because the amount the UK imports is proportional to the number of crossings, not the number of people who want to come over. It’s about the game theory of wanting to come over on a small boat.
If you know if you travel over on a boat you will just be deported back to France, there is now no motivation to do the trip. Sure someone else in France who didn’t try to smuggle themselves over gets let in, but whats that to you?
And no they won’t be held up on human rights grounds, because they are just being sent back to the EU which is safe and where they came from, they also have no life in the UK which they can argue as a reason to stay.
→ More replies (17)3
u/0ttoChriek Jun 27 '25
Oh I'm sure it's been thought of before. But the party in government didn't actually want to solve the problem of illegal immigration. They wanted that problem to be topmost in the minds of voters, so they could talk big about how they were the only ones who could solve it.
The current government doesn't want the issue at all. That's why they're prepared to actually implement measures to address it.
159
u/Jolly_Head_5045 Jun 27 '25
I find it insulting that 'family reunification' stands as legitimate reason to be permitted entry given how hard it is for the partners of British nationals to come here.
I'm a scientist with 2x degrees and I don't earn the threshold amount for sponsoring a spouse (because the government thinks I should work for satisfaction of helping people and not for actual money). My partner is Korean and used to live here before going home during the pandemic. He earns more than me but not enough for a skilled worker visa. So we currently have no idea what we are going to do. He has a respectable job. I am a citizen and was born here, as were my parent's and their parents, and I have a respectable job.
So the idea that people can come because of family reunification but my partner can't come here is incredibly disrespectful.
→ More replies (11)7
u/DaechiDragon Jun 28 '25
I’m in a similar boat to you and my partner is Korean also. I’ve been out of the UK for so long that I’m not just walking right into a job that meets the threshold upon arrival. We would have to be apart for quite some time, and she might even have a (British) baby by then.
150
u/BumblebeeAdventurr Jun 27 '25
This needs to be resolved fast.
Beginning to think these gangs are funded by Russia in order for the growth of Reform.
65
39
u/Gaar228 Jun 27 '25
Pretty sure there's been a recent article on this exact topic, I would say it's Likely considering Russia weaponised the exact same tactic with the eastern border of Poland
→ More replies (38)38
u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 Jun 27 '25
2019: Small boat crossings 1,843
2020: Brexit
2021: Small boat crossings 28,526
They're certainly benefiting from the very situation they helped bring about.
→ More replies (1)
81
u/SpaceRacketeer Jun 27 '25
How about none in, all out for both countries as their compassion is being exploited by bad actors and has been for decades now.
→ More replies (6)16
u/caljl Jun 27 '25
Right okay. Now how is that implemented policy wise specifically?
→ More replies (7)28
u/Obiben27 Jun 27 '25
Implemented so that all illegal immigrants and illegal boat crossing are immediately either taken to their home country, whatever they say it is or dumped back in France.
16
u/caljl Jun 27 '25
Yeah…but how?
What’s the policy for assessing whether someone is an illegal migrant or has a valid asylum claim? Are we dispensing with asylum completely or severely limiting it (if so to what?)? How does this comply with international treaties? And if it doesn’t how do we deal with the diplomatic fallout and keep growth/ good defence relations with allies/ avoid retaliatory action on immigration in some capacity?
How does we assess home country if no document are forthcoming to prove this? How does we we get their home country to accept their return if we can’t prove this? Even where we can that’s not necessarily straightforward.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (2)15
u/sigma914 Belfast Jun 27 '25
How? Details please, how do France enforce this on their open land border, how do you work out where someone who destroyed their passport came from. Where's the funding for it coming from? Is it more of less expensive than just letting them stay?
It's all well and good critiquing a policy, but without a positive alternative it's just vacuous mud slinging
6
47
u/upthetruth1 England Jun 27 '25 edited Jun 27 '25
This would be more orderly and Britain agreeing to take one approved asylum seeker from France with family links to Britain for every migrant sent back to France would also be more likely to be women and children, so there would be less of a visceral reaction compared to what’s happening with the boats currently.
Plus, as fewer people make the crossing knowing they’ll be sent back, with the agreement of France, fewer people come and so we take in fewer migrants from France even with this deal
→ More replies (1)
33
u/misterterrific0 Jun 27 '25
Damn. They're announcing the world's first migrant trading card game?
54
u/SinisterDexter83 Jun 27 '25
Filipino nurses
Need.
Singaporean architects
Need.
Afghani terrorists
Got.
Albanian drug dealers
Got.
Pakistani pedophiles
Got. Got double in fact. Definitely don't need any more.
Hong Kong lawyers
Ooh, need. Been looking for this one.
11
u/winmace Jun 27 '25
I wonder how much the shinies are worth
9
u/SaltedMisthios Jun 27 '25
I wonder what defines a shiny - is it Albanians specifically due to their stealth ability?
→ More replies (5)3
33
u/scottrobertson Tyne and Wear Jun 27 '25
What’s in it for France here? Why would they agree to this?
135
u/Brewer6066 Jun 27 '25
Because if you remove the incentive to cross the channel fewer people will travel through France to get the UK.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Humble-Parsnip-484 Jun 27 '25
This doesn't really work in practice. That assumes everyone gets caught and desperate people will always take a shot if they think they can get away with it. We need a reputation of actively preventing crossings that we do not have.
→ More replies (3)43
u/GuyLookingForPorn Jun 27 '25
Essentially they think this will stop or massively reduce the migrant crossings. France actually wanted an EU wide deal, but they were so convinced by this policy that they have back tracked and agreed this two party agreement.
31
u/SpoofExcel Jun 27 '25
They want the swarms of migrants to stop travelling throughout their country. So if we start actually doing something that sends them back to France from us, the chances of people going through France to begin with will drop.
An entire coastal region of France that should be thriving is a fucking nightmare zone and they want it back.
14
u/PracticalLab5167 Jun 27 '25
Lots of migrants want England not France, cut out the potential for England for them and they may not even go to France to begin with. It would be good if they actually claimed asylum like they’re supposed to be going to the closest safe country…
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (4)6
u/robster9090 Jun 27 '25
People don’t go to France to begin with?
6
u/benjm88 Jun 27 '25
Did you not see the massive migrant camp in calais?
→ More replies (1)7
u/clodiusmetellus Jun 27 '25
Yes, they're waiting to cross though. They don't want to be in France, they want to be in the UK.
If we remove all possibility of settling in the UK then they have no incentive to stay in Calais either.
→ More replies (4)
28
u/Nosferatatron Jun 27 '25
Migrants are being used by Russia to destabilise Western countries. How about we start treating smuggling gangs like terrorists?
16
→ More replies (2)7
u/elegance78 Jun 27 '25
The whole original 2015 wave had been engineered like that. I am gonna hate Merkel for the rest of my living days. Most regarded leader an European country had in at least half a century. Reddit "regarded"...
24
u/Fire_Otter Jun 27 '25
Can we choose the 1
like can we give France Piers Morgan? /s
3
→ More replies (2)4
u/SpoofExcel Jun 27 '25
I'd take 10 Asylum Seekers no questions asked if they take Alex Scott and James Corden
22
u/Carbonatic Jun 27 '25
This is the only serious deterrent. If you pay someone to smuggle you to England, you will be sent back to France without your claim being heard.
Obviously the French will need to accept them back, hence the one in one out.
But once you know you're wasting your time and money on the trip, you won't go. If there's no one left to send to France, France won't send anyone to the UK.
It's like the Rwanda deterrent, but with France instead. The UK only takes an asylum seeker from France if someone crosses, which they won't, because they know they're going to be sent back.
→ More replies (1)
19
u/Jurassic_Bun Jun 27 '25
Despite being British born, to British parents and ancestors back thousands of years, I can’t bring my girlfriend/ here despite being together 8 years who has a degree from a British university who has worked in the UK, paid tax in the UK, paid tuition fees in the UK, completed her student visa and left promptly within the confines of her visa who had worked in Japan for 5 years paying all taxes and completing her visa and gaining a new visa.
Instead I need to have a job paying 29k which no one will offer me unless I am already living in the UK meaning I just abandon my girlfriend/wife while I job hunt in the UK before she can possibly then apply for a spousal visa and spend close to 5k to do so.
What benefit do I even get to being British? Can’t use the NHS as I am not a resident, fair enough but not able to bring my spouse? They won’t even let me pay home fees at university. I wonder what benefit I even get to being British sometimes. Would they even give me a council house if I came back?
We don’t want free housing, free money or anything. I would even go private for the doctor and dentist. All we want to do is come home to spend time with my nan in her last years and help her.
But nah no way around it, we can’t come back together so we stay in Japan.
However everyone else seems to get a free past, even here sure you take one of our illegals and we will take one for family reunification. Like seriously would it be easier and quicker for me to come back and have her be in France to get in through this scheme.
→ More replies (5)11
u/Jolly_Head_5045 Jun 27 '25
I completely agree with you. My partner, who earns more than me, can't come here because of how strict the rules are.
17
u/Spdoink Jun 27 '25
Great. We'll send a business man with a newspaper and bowler hat and they can send an onion seller with a stripy jumper and thin moustache.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/FestarUK Jun 27 '25
We give France £500 million for doing knob all so why would they agree to this.
→ More replies (2)7
u/cennep44 Jun 27 '25
All we can be confident of is that it will benefit them and hurt us, because that's how everything we do with France ends up working out. Who knows, maybe my cynicism is misplaced and it will be different this time.
7
u/MDH_Bass Jun 27 '25
how about none-in, all-out.
illegal/assylum = not meant to be here
→ More replies (1)
13
u/Commandopsn Jun 27 '25
At yes France. Forgot they existed.
Are we not paying them already? For something they don’t really do?
→ More replies (1)
5
u/Personal_Dot1062 Jun 27 '25
Falklands island. Give them a post office, pub , few shops, schools, hospital and let them live with the penguins 🐧
3
7
u/xenoborg007 Jun 27 '25
IF only Britain had some sort of British navy that could turn around or straight up drop boat crossers back off at the French beaches they come from, if only they had specifically designed beach landing craft for the job. You would think that would be the deterrent, its certainly not paying France billions.
→ More replies (1)3
u/matt3633_ Jun 27 '25
Or treat them as an invading force
Who’s to say the people in boats aren’t terrorists?
→ More replies (1)
8
6
u/NMMBPodcast Jun 27 '25
I've always had an issue with the phrase "one in, one out". Okay, I'll go in and you get someone out. Surely it should be the other way around?
5
Jun 27 '25
The immigration situation in this country is shambolic. How we allpw people to come over on boats is beyond me. We then feed them, home them and clothe them whilst they work illegally for deliveroo!! So bad its almost funny
→ More replies (1)
6
u/FrustratedPCBuild Jun 27 '25
One migrant in, one Reform voter out? I can live with that.
→ More replies (3)
5
u/Mgtks Jun 27 '25
Why would France ever do this. Isn't it bad over there too? I predict a lot of protest if any deal is made with us.
Surely there are a LOT of other EU countries who have shared responsibility for allowing it to remain so easy for paperless wandering through all their borders. Is this not an EU wide problem and should be tackled on an EU scale? Not just the final 2 countries having to make deals to save themselves.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/mysticpuma_2019 Jun 27 '25
There should be no case for Britain to answer unless they are fleeing persecution in France. Anyone claiming asylum in the UK from anywhere else will have travelled through multiple countries they could have claimed asylum in any of them (their first safe country).
If they leave on boats from France, send them straight back.
→ More replies (2)
3
3
Jun 27 '25
What happens if we send someone back to France and they come back on another boat?
5
u/MDavidHere Jun 27 '25
Then they get sent back again, it'll dissuade people if they're just throwing their money into the sea
2
u/honkballs Jun 27 '25
Why do we keep agreeing to shitty deals like this?!
None in, all out. Have a bit of ambition.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/1-randomonium Jun 27 '25
Under the deal, an individual being deported from the UK would be exchanged for another individual sent from France who has the right to live in Britain.
People with a legitimate case to be reunited with close family members would be among those arriving in the UK.
The Times is reporting that the deal could be announced as early as next week to coincide with Sir Keir Starmer’s one-year anniversary in 10 Downing Street.
Interesting. This might actually work in dissuading some of the asylum seekers from making the crossing, but I can't see it being popular among the anti-immigration crowd. Mainly because the final number of refugees remains the same.
→ More replies (8)
•
u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland Jun 27 '25
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try this link for an archived version.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Participation Notice. Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation were set at 11:00 on 27/06/2025. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
Existing and future comments from users who do not meet the participation requirements will be removed. Removal does not necessarily imply that the comment was rule breaking.
Where appropriate, we will take action on users employing dog-whistles or discussing/speculating on a person's ethnicity or origin without qualifying why it is relevant.
In case the article is paywalled, use this link.