I'm a bit hesitant to post this, but it comes from a place of genuine curiosity and of wanting a clearer understanding of the situation. Because trying to make sense of things through online resources feels like a minefield. My gut tells me that migration is a good thing, but I want some solid ammunition for when far-right idiots try to argue.
Firstly it seems like there is a large amount of conflation between 'immigration', 'illegal immigration' and 'asylum seekers'. As far as I understand it, asylum seekers are coming into this country legally in order to apply for asylum. However, a lot come in via small boats which is an illegal method of entry. It seems that there are very few legal ways to enter if you're an asylum seeker. Once you're here though, I think it's legal once you're going through the asylum process? Either way as far as I can tell, asylum seekers make for a small portion of the overall number of immigrants. But when you see people protesting, they mainly seem to be concerned by people coming in via boats. Surely it's fair greater number of legal migrants that are the ones more likely to put a strain on infrastructure?
And yes there definitely are strains on the NHS and other public services. The population is growing, and these services need to grow alongside that. But isn't it more sensible to say that the fault lies not with migrants, but the fact that these services are being mismanaged and underfunded?
I've also heard that the UK has an ageing population. Without immigration we soon won't have the workforce necessary to support the non-working portion of the population.
So is there actually an issue with immigration, or do the people that argue that case actually have it backwards? Is the problem actually our underfunded services, and the whole immigration rhetoric purely populist nonsense to get the far-right in power (who in turn, aim to give tax breaks to the rich and exacerbate the issue even further)?
And where exactly can I go to get factual information about this sort of thing?
I don't disagree with your overall message.
However, I find it very hard to evaluate to what extent the asylum checks are working when really all we have are success rate statistics (which could mean they're largely deserving, or we have a too-lenient system. How to judge?) and anecdotal statements about the destruction of documents, and inconsistent stories (e.g. those who failed to be granted asylum in the UK presenting somewhere else with a different nationality).
But I can't see how you're in any different position in terms of information, and so you seem to be discarding the anecdotes and undeniable incentive to lie to believe the claimants. If it's "malicious to assume that most asylum-seekers are cunning con artists playing the system" because we don't have good evidence of that, is it not equally credulous to assume that most asylum seekers are who they say they are?
It's on the basis of that uncertainty that I'm open to seeing the rules changed.
This is what really annoys me; that it's so hard to find actual data on this kind of stuff. We're forced to rely on anecdotes. But I'd bet that the vast majority of people making these life-threatening journeys are legitimate asylum seekers rather than opportunists.
It seems that if the system had the funding it needed, we wouldn't have a backlog stuck in hotels and would thus save money overall. I don't think any attempt to stop boat crossings is really going to work - they'll just find other ways to cross. Perhaps the only real solution is to provide safe, legal routes. But that seems impossible in the current climate.