This flight to Rwanda

[Eric Cartman]

Not necessarily, because that could lead to very high numbers, as there are an awful lot of political opponents or people otherwise eligible for asylum in many countries who may wish to make Britain home.

Without some kind of rules and sensible management, the situation quickly becomes totally unsustainable and the public lose faith, especially when they are facing financial crisis of their own.

In answer to your question, I think this is a pretty unprecedented situation that requires a pretty unprecedented solution. I would support the UK taking more from warzones or proper channels. It's the means they arrive and our inability to do anything about it that is the issue

It amazes me how people see no issue at all. Naivity causes a lot of it I guess, and the fact a lot of people want the current govt to fail so are content for any crisis to help do that.

You aren't allowed to build that strawman, it isn't that people see no problem at all, the solution is unpalatable to them and they feel like there must be something better.

So my solution is viable but it might let in too many people? Fair point, but you should add that to the list next time you explain why you support the policy - because it will reduce migration. It's okay to want that, you can admit it. We have been going around in circles in these threads precisely because you didn't want to admit that your primary concern is the number of asylum seekers and that their method of entry/fairness of the system is a secondary concern. I can see why this policy appeals now.

[JamesWales]

You aren't allowed to build that strawman, it isn't that people see no problem at all, the solution is unpalatable to them and they feel like there must be something better.

So my solution is viable but it might let in too many people? Fair point, but you should add that to the list next time you explain why you support the policy - because it will reduce migration. It's okay to want that, you can admit it. We have been going around in circles in these threads precisely because you didn't want to admit that your primary concern is the number of asylum seekers and that their method of entry/fairness of the system is a secondary concern. I can see why this policy appeals now.

But that is definitively not what I've said. Have you read any criticism of me on the support shown to people fleeing Afghanistan or Hong Kong? No you havent. Because it's managed and done to a system and process that is accountable and (hopefully) just.

My issue is with a theoretically limitless number of boats arriving, jumping the queue, enriching criminal gangs and our complete inability to do anything about it.

This isn't a hard stance to understand to be honest, you should have an issue with this too, as it undermines faith in the entire system.

Now honestly, I have to go to sleep, or else you'll have me up until 3am thinking of killer arguments!

Nos da

[Eric Cartman]

But that is definitively not what I've said. Have you read any criticism of me on the support shown to people fleeing Afghanistan or Hong Kong? No you havent. Because it's managed and done to a system and process that is accountable and (hopefully) just.

My issue is with a theoretically limitless number of boats arriving, jumping the queue, enriching criminal gangs and our complete inability to do anything about it.

This isn't a hard stance to understand to be honest, you should have an issue with this too, as it undermines faith in the entire system.

Now honestly, I have to go to sleep, or else you'll have me up until 3am thinking of killer arguments!

Nos da

Might be crossed wires but when I said:

Isn't the obvious alternative just to make the legal route better? The fact that the vast majority of people entering illegally would obtain asylum status legally should tell you that the legal system is too slow or too hard to access. So speed it up or make it easier to access.

You said:

Not necessarily, because that could lead to very high numbers, as there are an awful lot of political opponents or people otherwise eligible for asylum in many countries who may wish to make Britain home.

That reads to me as though this is more about preventing 'high numbers' than reducing illegal methods, dangerous entry or increasing fairness. Which I will say again, is fine. But let's stop beating around the bush.