Best Of

Just end the right to asylum. Job done

This should have happened some time ago.

If you read the political discourse in the 1930s, we see people saying the same things as those opposed to asylum now say. Do you think in the 1930s we should have taken in more refugees, fewer refugees or we got the number just right?

You'll flailing all over the place today trying to defend the universal right to asylum. And, now, you've plumped for your last refuge with Godwin.

It's all pretty desperate, really. You know you're losing this.

It is quite desperate

Asylum was a lovely idea in the 19th century and for much of the 20th century. Generous and kind and noble. But now in 2025 in a world of 8 billion and
international flights and mass migration and the rest, it simply doesn’t work, and millions of people worldwide are abusing the system to get into the west - causing severe social strain, economic decay and the rise of far right parties

So: end it

His argument doesn't even stack up on its own merits.

We've got generous asylum schemes open to Ukraine and Hong Kong, both of which command public support, and we would do the same again toward for a similar "1930s Germany" scenario.

It's ending the universal right that's important. We then decide who, where, when and how many going forth.

a

a

From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

“Can you hear that familiar sound?

The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.

Which is stupid, in another way.

Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.

I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.

My plan

1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
5) They get indefinite leave to remain.

Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.

I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.

Fair enough. I guess it would be a good way for Labour to look like they are doing something though.

There’s a reason they are so keen on claiming asylum in the U.K.

More people claim asylum in places like France and Germany. Those who claim asylum in the UK do so for a variety of reasons. Some are attracted to the UK, some speak English better than other languages, some are seeking to join family or existing communities. A Home Office research study, https://www.embraceni.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/hors243.pdf , concluded:

"For those respondents who were in a position to choose a destination country, several key factors shaped their decision to come to the UK. These were: whether they had relatives or friends here; their belief that the UK is a safe, tolerant and democratic country; previous links between their own country and the UK including colonialism; and their ability to speak English or desire to learn it.

"There was very little evidence that the sample respondents had a detailed knowledge of: UK immigration or asylum procedures; entitlements to benefits in the UK; or the availability of work in the UK. There was even less evidence that the respondents had a comparative knowledge of how these phenomena varied between different European countries. Most of the respondents wished to work and support themselves during the determination of their asylum claim rather than be dependent on the state."

However, it's a difficult area to study and the paper notes concerns about sampling bias. The paper also notes that many people go through people smugglers, and they go where the people smugglers will take them.

A 2006 paper, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13691830600821901 , reports:

"Received wisdom suggests that asylum-seekers come to the UK because of the generosity of the welfare state and the ease of finding work in the growing informal labour market, because the UK has no identity cards, and because of a fairly poor record on sending home unsuccessful asylum applicants. Based on interviews with 87 asylum-seekers from Afghanistan, Colombia, Kosovo and Somalia, this paper suggests that the realities of asylum-seeking are quite different. Few of the respondents arrived with much knowledge of the UK, and their knowledge was limited to general impressions of the country; they knew little about asylum policy and practice. There are five main reasons why they knew so little: many had not chosen their own destination; surprisingly few had family or friends already in the UK; in some cases they had been provided with false or misleading information; many had departed their country of origin in a rush; and most were relatively poorly educated. Why they ended up in the UK was often linked to the role of smugglers, who often chose the final destination."

The smugglers get them into debt, very often, which they then have to work off.

A business model that only works, if they can get employment.

Do you have some evidence, some data, on this?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/04/illegal-migrants-britain-easy-money-deliveroo-jobs/

I refer you to my earlier comment about the Telegraph. If you have some reliable evidence...

snip

From 20 years ago, with sample of 87 and by its nature will be self selecting....

I referenced two other studies as well. It is a difficult area to study and I noted the issue of sampling bias. Feel free to share other research in this area. I'll take 20 year old research over vibes.

And for these sorts of conclusions, 87 is fine as a sample size: see https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13645579.2015.1005453

The other two were 20+ years and 15 years old. And as I say they are self selecting. The world is very different place now with internet access on every bodies phone and social media.

We had smartphones and social media 15 years ago!

a

a

From the MP for Pendle and Clitheroe:

https://x.com/Jonathan_Hinder/status/1919310898247643422

“Can you hear that familiar sound?

The engines of the liberal establishment are revving up to explain why Reform’s success is definitely not down to the one thing we know it definitely is: immigration.”

My piece on what’s staring us in the face👇

The significance of both Tory and, as here, Labour MPs talking Reform's language and advocvating their cause should not be overlooked.

A centrist realignment is on the way, with the aim of shooting Reform's fox. Soon everyone will sound like 1950s Labour. Lab and Con have a common interest in shooting the fox before Reform's hounds catch up with them.

Which is stupid, in another way.

Do something. Do something that might work and be aligned with progressive principles.

For example, go after demand. My idea to financialise going after the users/abusers of illegal migrant labour. The migrants themselves get a reward (paid for out of the assets of those exploiting them) and indefinite leave to remain.

Make the rich criminals pay. Help the poor migrants. As an added bonus, this might work. Plus you get lots of headlines in the Mail - “House of head of slave gang in Holland Park seized”.

I think the real deterrent would be fines on a strict liability basis. At the moment it's based on whether you knew they were illegal.

Even better, apply it to those who use such services. Would certainly make me think twice before getting the car washed, ordering food, getting a haircut or jumping in an Uber. It would stimulate an awful lot of racial bias, and screw a lot of legitimate small businesses, but I think it's probably worth it at this stage.

My plan

1) 100k fine per instance of illegal employment/selling visas/etc
2) liability via proceeds of crime legislation - a network of companies won’t save you.
3) liability for sub-contractors - looking at you, Deliveroo.
4) 50% of the fine goes to the reporter of the crime
5) They get indefinite leave to remain.

Yep. The debate around this is a good example of cognitive dissonance - it's all about asylum rules, even though the assumption is that all of the migrants are economic migrants. The only way to stop small boats (without murdering people in the channel) is to neutralise demand for cheap illegal labour.

I don't know that the evidence supports that. Lots of people on small boats have valid asylum claims, so neutralising the demand for cheap illegal labour won't dissuade them. Those who have their claims denied, do they come over on the expectation/hope their claims will be successful? Or do they come over to do illegal labour? Government figures say few boat people disappear into the black economy; nearly all of them just make an asylum claim as soon as possible.

Fair enough. I guess it would be a good way for Labour to look like they are doing something though.

There’s a reason they are so keen on claiming asylum in the U.K.

More people claim asylum in places like France and Germany. Those who claim asylum in the UK do so for a variety of reasons. Some are attracted to the UK, some speak English better than other languages, some are seeking to join family or existing communities. A Home Office research study, https://www.embraceni.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/hors243.pdf , concluded:

"For those respondents who were in a position to choose a destination country, several key factors shaped their decision to come to the UK. These were: whether they had relatives or friends here; their belief that the UK is a safe, tolerant and democratic country; previous links between their own country and the UK including colonialism; and their ability to speak English or desire to learn it.

"There was very little evidence that the sample respondents had a detailed knowledge of: UK immigration or asylum procedures; entitlements to benefits in the UK; or the availability of work in the UK. There was even less evidence that the respondents had a comparative knowledge of how these phenomena varied between different European countries. Most of the respondents wished to work and support themselves during the determination of their asylum claim rather than be dependent on the state."

However, it's a difficult area to study and the paper notes concerns about sampling bias. The paper also notes that many people go through people smugglers, and they go where the people smugglers will take them.

A 2006 paper, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13691830600821901 , reports:

"Received wisdom suggests that asylum-seekers come to the UK because of the generosity of the welfare state and the ease of finding work in the growing informal labour market, because the UK has no identity cards, and because of a fairly poor record on sending home unsuccessful asylum applicants. Based on interviews with 87 asylum-seekers from Afghanistan, Colombia, Kosovo and Somalia, this paper suggests that the realities of asylum-seeking are quite different. Few of the respondents arrived with much knowledge of the UK, and their knowledge was limited to general impressions of the country; they knew little about asylum policy and practice. There are five main reasons why they knew so little: many had not chosen their own destination; surprisingly few had family or friends already in the UK; in some cases they had been provided with false or misleading information; many had departed their country of origin in a rush; and most were relatively poorly educated. Why they ended up in the UK was often linked to the role of smugglers, who often chose the final destination."

The smugglers get them into debt, very often, which they then have to work off.

A business model that only works, if they can get employment.

Do you have some evidence, some data, on this?

This was the reasons given time and again in court cases that they were here through bonded labour, it was very common reason given particularly by Albanians.

The government made numerous statements about this particular issue.