Let's call a spade a spade. 99% of asylum seekers are economic migrants. They want a better life - so would I if I lived in any of the countries they come from. And if I couldn't manage to achieve immigration to the West legally then I'd probably try it the way they're all trying it.
You cannot convince me that a Bosnian or Kosovian has to travel through both Italy and France or through Austria, Germany and Holland before he can feel safe from persecution in UK. Or that an Afghan has to travel through Pakistan and Indonesia to feel safe in Australia.>
We're far too soft on this. We should draw up a list of countries which we deem to be "safe". And we should immediately reject all asylum applications where the individual has passed through any of those countries on his/her way to UK. Send them back to their home country on the next plane.
Having reduced the number of applications by 95% we could then speed up the processing of the applications from people seeking asylum and who'd arrived in UK directly from their home country. And finally, in order to address the objections that will undoubtedly come from all those "safe" states, we should allow the immigration of a reasonable number (the UK's fair share, a couple of thousand, maybe) of refugees who have made their application in other countries and whose applications have been accepted.
A policy that allows us to accept our fair share of genuine asylum seekers and none of the economic migrants.
One last thought - if France doesn't cooperate over closing Sangate pdq then it's long overdue for us to put our foot down. We should open a special processing centre in Caithness (or some such inaccessible place) to check all French cheeses for listeria and we should staff it with just one or two guys. The French did that with Japanese televisions so I'm sure the message would soon get through......