NotKindle.com ( No Worries ) . 100% FREE

are waiting for asylum decisions? How many have received refusals? How many have exhausted their appeals? How many people are currently being accommodated? How many people are awaiting removal? And how much is the system costing? No guesses. No political exaggeration. A proper set of numbers. Then I would publish them. The public would know exactly where we were starting. ## Second: Clear the backlog I would put additional trained staff into the asylum system. The objective would be straightforward: **Make decisions quickly and correctly.** Genuine claims should not be left waiting unnecessarily. Claims that do not meet the requirements should not remain unresolved simply because the system is overloaded. I would set targets and publish performance every month. If the targets were missed, I would explain why. ## Third: Build a proper returns system I would make returns a major part of immigration policy. That means negotiating with countries of origin. It means improving identity checks. It means making sure the necessary documents can be obtained. It means dealing with appeals properly. And when somebody has no legal right to remain and there is no legal obstacle to removal, I would expect the system to act. A final decision must mean something. ## Fourth: Go after the smugglers I would treat people-smuggling as serious organised crime. I would put resources into identifying the people who organise the crossings. Not just the people sitting in the boats. I would follow the money. I would investigate the financial networks. I would target the people supplying the boats and equipment. And I would work with international police forces to find the organisers wherever they are operating. The message would be simple: **If you make money from dangerous Channel crossings, Britain will come after your criminal organisation.** ## Fifth: Make France a genuine partner I would sit down with the French Government and agree measurable objectives. Not vague promises. Specific targets. How many attempted crossings should be prevented? How many smuggling organisations should be disrupted? What information should be shared? How should joint intelligence work? How should funding be monitored? And what happens when the agreed targets are not achieved? Both countries would publish the results. ## Sixth: Change the incentive I would make sure that people considering the journey understood the reality. The message would be honest. If you need protection, there is a process. Your claim will be considered. But reaching Britain does not guarantee that you will be allowed to remain. If your claim fails and you have no other legal right to stay, you may be required to leave. And the people promising you an easy route across the Channel may be criminals trying to take your money. That is not a threat. It is information. ## Seventh: Examine legal routes carefully I would also examine whether carefully controlled legal routes could help reduce dangerous irregular journeys for people with genuine protection needs. But any such route would have to be limited. It would have to be controlled. And it would have to be evaluated by results. The question would always be: **Does this reduce dangerous irregular migration, or does it simply create another route into Britain?** If it does not work, change it. ## Eighth: Stop treating every problem as somebody else's fault I would not blame France for everything. I would not blame the previous government for everything. I would not blame migrants for everything. And I would not pretend that Britain is responsible for every problem in the world. Government is responsible for solving problems. That means accepting responsibility when something goes wrong. ## Ninth: Give