Britain to introduce compulsory digital ID for workers

I didn't watch the video, but have read other reports, and it's worth noting that the context for this is the Labour Party conference, which starts on Sunday. The UK govt are under pressure from the tories and Reform to do something about people entering the UK from France by crossing the channel in small boats. Nothing much seems to be working. So this announcement is about trying to control the narrative by making a big, distracting announcement. I'd mlbe surprised if many people in the government/police/civil service expect it to make a difference.

Also, seems to be intended to be mandatory and require a smartphone. Hows that going to work?

Also, what happens when the database is inevitably stolen?

“Nothing much seems to be working” because the government is completely unserious about stopping the boats and is unwilling to do any of the things that might actually work.

They could stop them in a week if they actually wanted to.

The larger problem is 10 times as many arrive via Heathrow. That’s what causes the pressure on local services, from housing to GPs to transport.

The small boats crossing are a small fraction of immigration. Some Google number claims 37k people got in this way in 2024. With net migration hovering around 0.8-1m people per year, arrivals must be well above this number (surely some people are leaving, making the net number smaller). But even then, this is less than 5% of the legal immigration, and probably a lot less than that.

I'm not saying it doesn't need addressing or isn't serious, but I think it's a convenient topic for politicians. It's a lot more media-friendly than the arrivals queue at Luton Airport. And the illegal immigrants aren't the ones putting pressure on NHS, housing market or train driver unions.

Legally and morally? What is your solution?

Uhm are you sure about those numbers?

0.8m is like on the average a whole county in the UK, and such massive influx would destroy the housing- and job market. Not to mention pressure on schools and healthcare.

Stick them in processing centres until they can be deported. Send a clear message to anyone who might come that it won't work, you won't get in, we won't give you anything, don't risk your life or waste your money.

Australia did exactly this (in the face of howling opposition) and it worked: illegal boat arrivals dropped from ~20,000 per year to almost zero. Thousands of people used to drown attempting the crossing, now no-one drowns. There's your moral case.

Legally, Parliament is sovereign. If the current legal framework doesn't allow it, change the law. Except they won't, because they don't want to solve the problem and they use the law as an excuse as if they aren't the fucking government.

Depends on if you are looking at this in terms of numbers of people or cost. The Home Office annual spend on processing asylum seekers has ballooned from just under £1 billion to near £5 billion in the space of 5 years, which is 1/3 of the estimated £14 billion raised from the unpopular National Insurance increase.

What do you think is happening to those markets?

The actual number is like half of that because while 800k people came, about 400k people left.

I am an immigrant myself but I start to think that such policies are short-sighted. The end result is often fragmentation of the society, because immigrants rarely truly integrate, and at some point they become the majority, and then you're effectively a minority in your own country. It takes at least two generations for newcomers to become fully integrated, and that assumes things going right.

What are the options legally available to them? They have their own experts, but it sounds like you have a novel idea that hasn't occurred to anyone before.

> legally

They're the ones who make the laws?

Exactly, this is what I am saying. The 0.8-1m number is the legal, net migration into the UK, very significant, and adding to the downsides people associate with immigration. It's not all downsides etc etc but still.

The 37k small boats migration is very small in comparison. Plus there's illegal immigration not via small boats - overstayed visas etc.

Hence my point that the overfocus on small boats crossings seems misplaced to me.

This does indeed seem like a crazy high number.

Even then, what fraction of all asylum seekers comes via small boats, vs other means? I believe the UK is entirely within its right to send small boats asylum seekers back to France, since it is a safe country. International conventions on asylum seekers state this - you are not entitled to drive thru the whole of Europe then demand asylum specifically in the UK.

I don't want to come across as uncaring, I'm sure there are tragedies that drive people to doing this, that doesn't mean the UK has to also mismanage the process on its side.

The UK was indeed part of treaty system that meant other states had to "take back" asylum seekers that traveled through them to the UK, but it decided it was in its best interest to quit that a few years ago, so France is a lot less motivated to do that now.

From what I've read, about 1/3 of all asylum seekers over the last 7 years arrived via small boat crossings.

Looking forward though, about 90% of those arriving in small boat crossings are currently going on to seek asylum and the average annual cost of supporting an asylum seeker during their claim has risen to an estimated £41k, so for ~30k arrivals this year, the financial cost of not processing these claims promptly could increase that overall annual bill further still.

Also, in the first year of processing, costs may be drawn from the overseas aid budget (which was recently shrunk). This results in possibly 1/5 of the overseas aid budget being used for costs associated with processing asylum claims, which perhaps doesn't match most people's expectations as to what overseas aid should be used for.

I think that's why even though the number of people involved in these crossings is small compared to net migration, it has a big financial impact.

I'm genuinely wondering how harsh you'd be willing to be to get what you want.

What would you do if an individual can't be deported because no country will accept them? Or if their country of origin is likely to kill or torture them? Or if no commercial carrier is willing to risk operating to that country? Would you be willing to deport unaccompanied children with no guarantee that they'd be cared for?

I love how Brits take laws/rules so seriously but spend absolutely no time thinking _about_ the rules. How they're made, 2nd order consequences etc

This is a perniciously xenophobic take, tbh. Who are you to decide your values are objectively better than theirs? /s

There is a village A dragon comes to the village every year. In exchange for 2% of the children, it spares the rest and promises its “magical” protection from unseen enemies. This arrangement has lasted 2,000 years. Most villagers worship it, even though the custom has left their village far worse off than others in the land.

Some villagers move away. Not all of them are dragon-worshippers, but some are and they still try to summon the dragon.

Now the dragon free villagers face a choice:

Keep them out. But that means some innocent children among them will die.

Let them in. Risk the cult spreading again inside the walls and possibly bringing the dragon back.

Go kill the dragon themselves. Accept substantial casualties including innocent dragon worshippers and some of their own people.

Killing the dragon would mean temporarily brutal treatment of the worshippers and the destruction of their culture, but it would spare future generations from an unbounded amount of suffering.

All the more reason for them to stay in France.

The humane option is still available. It’s not too late to take it. But if you keep refusing it, don’t complain when you get something else.

The migration numbers are net so I believe this is arrivals minus departures (or someone has a very weird definition of net).

Its not clear what your "humane option" is. Care to explain?

I'm really not sure what point you're making here. What is the "dragon" in irregular migration. What is the "village"?

We keep getting told that these people are predominantly young men of working age.

If only someone could come up with a brilliant idea which might allow them to make a long-term contribution to the economy far in excess of the cost of processing their asylum applications...

It isn’t hard to parse. If you’re very literal minded, forget the mapping and just engage with the story on its own terms, then we can parse it.

Otherwise, I can only assume the trade offs are too uncomfortable (cognitive dissonance, you're a gentle soul!) or it’s a bad-faith feint to shift the burden while posing as “too rational” to engage.

No analogy is perfect. The question is whether the trade off it illustrates applies. Engage with that.

Net migration is expected to be 200k in 2026