Why can’t we process illegals in the British embassy Paris?

[milesgiles]

3 or 4 billion on hotels pays for an awful lot of relocation of asylum claim workers?

I’m not against taking our share. Up to a point. I’m very against the utter waste of money under the current system.

[Gecko1978]

We could but let's be honest we might reject many so instead they would still choose to cross illegally

[milesgiles]

Gecko1978 said:

We could but let's be honest we might reject many so instead they would still choose to cross illegally

When we then say no. Application already rejected

[rodericb]

Well, if they're in Paris they aren't (illegal) immigrants trying' to get into Britain yet.

[fly by wire]

rodericb said:

Well, if they're in Paris they aren't (illegal) immigrants trying' to get into Britain yet.

They are also in a safe country (unless your name happens to be Macron)

[Murph7355]

They likely could be if we wanted that to happen. But am not sure it would materially reduce people smuggling etc.

I don't believe any country has neon sign posted formal ways for these sort of applications to happen. I suspect the first country (that people typically want to migrate to) to do so would see a fairly major uptick in applications/migration.

This is a global problem that needs a global solution. A global clearing house and process where people go to the next available safe country in line if they need asylum. And a global process that organises the return of illegals.

It will never happen.

[768]

milesgiles said:

Gecko1978 said:

We could but let's be honest we might reject many so instead they would still choose to cross illegally

When we then say no. Application already rejected

And then what do you do with them?

[NDNDNDND]

768 said:

milesgiles said:

Gecko1978 said:

We could but let's be honest we might reject many so instead they would still choose to cross illegally

When we then say no. Application already rejected

And then what do you do with them?

Fly them to Rwanda.

For as much flak as the Rwanda plan got, it made sense to me.

The idea wasn't to fly people to Rwanda, it was as an ultimate deterrent to dissuade people from paying smugglers and taking dangerous journeys across the channel by making the journey futile.

[Murph7355]

768 said:

milesgiles said:

Gecko1978 said:

We could but let's be honest we might reject many so instead they would still choose to cross illegally

When we then say no. Application already rejected

And then what do you do with them?

In theory, if managed properly, you know where they applied/turned up... So return there.

This is where the lack of a global agreement causes it to fall apart, however.

Rwanda could be useful in this circumstance. But all you then likely do is force the applicants underground once more. Though if you have formal routes, maybe a "straight to Rwanda" verdict could be applied there too.

The last two Govts haven't been boxing clever on this topic. Sort the law out, sort the major arguments detractors use (no formal routes) and then implement. They have all left themselves open to challenge that makes their ideas fall apart in seconds.

[Newc]

NDNDNDND said:

768 said:

milesgiles said:

Gecko1978 said:

We could but let's be honest we might reject many so instead they would still choose to cross illegally

When we then say no. Application already rejected

And then what do you do with them?

Fly them to Rwanda.

The idea wasn't to fly people to Rwanda, it was as an ultimate deterrent to dissuade people from paying smugglers and taking dangerous journeys across the channel by making the journey futile.

This is the question, and this is the answer. No migration discussion is worth the effort unless there is an answer to "and what do you do with people who enter the country illegally?"

You have to start there, and work backwards, not the other way round.

[Murph7355]

Newc said:

This is the question, and this is the answer. No migration discussion is worth the effort unless there is an answer to "and what do you do with people who enter the country illegally?"

You have to start there, and work backwards, not the other way round.

That rapidly moves into the "how do you enter legally when you are an asylum seeker?" question.

[milesgiles]

Murph7355 said:

Newc said:

This is the question, and this is the answer. No migration discussion is worth the effort unless there is an answer to "and what do you do with people who enter the country illegally?"

You have to start there, and work backwards, not the other way round.

That rapidly moves into the "how do you enter legally when you are an asylum seeker?" question.

By being processed in Paris? A safe and legal route? And if the answer is No and they dinghy it, Rwanda. Or whatever Australia do.

Point being once you send a dozen there, no one else will try

[swisstoni]

Anyone failing to gain asylum at the embassy in Paris would head straight to Calais anyway.

So it’s really not a solution. It may enable a less welcoming attitude from UK based officials but once on UK soil, many illegals aren’t going be deported anyway due to the countries they will be from, or claim to be from.

[irc]

You need to reduce the attraction. So no more free housing or benefits of any kind for anyone who enters the UK on a small boat from Calais.

Anyone entering that way should know they will never get UK citizenship.

Plus a Rwanda type solution for anyone who destroys their docs so we don't know where to deport them to.

Edited by irc on Monday 26th May 17:20

[jesusbuiltmycar]

Why don’t we simply offer them the same level of benefits that get in France - minimal cash along with a tent and a sleeping bag instead of a hotel?

Surely that on its own would work as a deterrent.

[Burrow01]

milesgiles said:

Gecko1978 said:

We could but let's be honest we might reject many so instead they would still choose to cross illegally

When we then say no. Application already rejected

The original question was not would it reduce the numbers, it was would it be cheaper.

At the moment there seems to be no willingness to actually speed up the process for people to apply for asylum. Its the visible costs and impacts of keeping these people waiting that causes all the issues and comments.
About 50% of claims for asylum are successful, and so if these were processed more quickly, the people could actually go and get a job etc.

It would still leave the other 50% of failed asylum seekers to deal with, but it would still be a significant improvement on the current situation

[Mrr T]

milesgiles said:

3 or 4 billion on hotels pays for an awful lot of relocation of asylum claim workers?

I’m not against taking our share. Up to a point. I’m very against the utter waste of money under the current system.

Small problem those in hotels are in the UK how are you going to get them to interviews in Paris?

There is nothing wrong with processing in France. It been suggested by French officials.

In the mean time the solution to costs is reduce the processing time to clear the backlog and increase deportation. Let see how Labour are doing when figures are published.

[Tom8]

NDNDNDND said:

768 said:

milesgiles said:

Gecko1978 said:

We could but let's be honest we might reject many so instead they would still choose to cross illegally

When we then say no. Application already rejected

And then what do you do with them?

Fly them to Rwanda.

For as much flak as the Rwanda plan got, it made sense to me.

The idea wasn't to fly people to Rwanda, it was as an ultimate deterrent to dissuade people from paying smugglers and taking dangerous journeys across the channel by making the journey futile.

It did make sense, sending you back to the continent from which you came was a huge deterrent. You'd be back to square 1. I don't know of their diplomatic relationships but perhaps they have agreements in place with other governments whereby they can return people to their native country.

We have no deterrents. Quite the opposite, we roll out the red carpet.

[Bo_apex]

Tom8 said:

NDNDNDND said:

768 said:

milesgiles said:

Gecko1978 said:

We could but let's be honest we might reject many so instead they would still choose to cross illegally

When we then say no. Application already rejected

And then what do you do with them?

Fly them to Rwanda.

For as much flak as the Rwanda plan got, it made sense to me.

The idea wasn't to fly people to Rwanda, it was as an ultimate deterrent to dissuade people from paying smugglers and taking dangerous journeys across the channel by making the journey futile.

It did make sense, sending you back to the continent from which you came was a huge deterrent. You'd be back to square 1. I don't know of their diplomatic relationships but perhaps they have agreements in place with other governments whereby they can return people to their native country.

We have no deterrents. Quite the opposite, we roll out the red carpet.

Anti-invasion measures


https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news/2025/april/23/25...

[P-Jay]

milesgiles said:

3 or 4 billion on hotels pays for an awful lot of relocation of asylum claim workers?

I’m not against taking our share. Up to a point. I’m very against the utter waste of money under the current system.

Because it's a common misconception that embassies are 'British Soil' or the property of any other nation and you have to physically be in the country to claim asylum.

Asylum seekers aren't acting illegally. The 1951 Refugee Convention, doesn't require them to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, although you might think if you were fleeing some bullst at home, you wouldn't risk a channel crossing on top of all that. I think they have to report to someone that, that's what they're doing as soon as practical when they arrive.

Illegal Migrants, whose to are seeking to move to the UK to work / live without a visa. Typically coming from Eastern Europe, they don't intend to claim asylum. They're planning to work in the UK illegally, either as undocumented workers doing otherwise legit jobs (harvesting, washing cars whatever) or in the black market selling drugs / prostitution etc. They can go to the Embassy to apply to do that, like anyone else can, but they likely won't qualify.

It's a really st situation all-around really. You've got people drowning in the channel, billions of pounds being spent trying to deal with the problem, people who are really pissed off about all the new people, a housing crisis that's being made worse etc etc etc, but if there was a simple solution someone would have mentioned it by now. The only ones claiming their is one, are the ones on the fringe who think there's a simple solution to everything and it's usually 'common sense'. Not to mention it's just one of those topics that divides us along the usual nasty lines.