The English Channel

[Uther]

Really? In your opinion, an asylum process "should" provide unlimited free travel for anyone, anywhere in the world, to make a claim and no identification requirements?

That is your view and proposal?

Sorry if this sounds rude but that is just ridiculous.

It sounds like he's dug himself into a hole with a ridiculous suggestion and rather than stop digging is just doubling down.

 

[cheesyboy]

Really? In your opinion, an asylum process "should" provide unlimited free travel for anyone, anywhere in the world, to make a claim and no identification requirements?

That is your view and proposal?

Sorry if this sounds rude but that is just ridiculous.

I wasn't proposing an international network of asylum transport to the UK. Simply allowing a process by which we can allow a legit route into the UK instead of the bit where they overfill a dinghy or suffocate in theback of a lorry. Allow the asylum process to begin in France, and bring them here safely.

It's pretty ghoulish to prefer to see people drown, really.

 

[robfosters]

I can’t take Cheesyboy serious any more.

He has to be trolling

 

[EddScott]

How so?

People without documentation could be processed through immigration control and filtered into the asylum process, if that is their intent. Their claim is assessed and either accepted or rejected.

Can't see why anyone would be against that tbh.

I'm wondering which is the least worst option.

Continue wasting money on a strategy that doesn't work and see lives being lost. Or let them in. I would have to draw the line at "uncontrolled".

They would need to be processed - where are they held? And if they are granted asylum, where do they go? And if their application is rejected where do they go?

 

[dowie]

It's interesting how when Belarus allowed migrants to the Polish border it was seen as weaponizing them and outrageous, at one point about 1000 had amassed there. Meanwhile, the UK's long term frenemy, France seems to have some selective enforcement and we've recently been having as many as 1000 per day cross the channel.

Of course, they want to have more money for policing maybe sometimes they have police carry out enforcement action, sometimes they leave the camps alone, sometimes the crack down...

Funnily enough, after this tragedy, with 27 people sadly drowned in the channel, they were able to arrest 5 suspected traffickers within hours:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...igrant-arrests-update-smuggling-b1964069.html

Five people have been arrested in connection with the sinking of a boat in the English Channel that killed at least 27 migrants, France’s interior minister has said.

Authorities said on Wednesday, the day the shipwreck happened, that four suspected people smugglers had been arrested.


Gerald Darmanin, the interior minister, announced a fifth arrest on Thursday morning. He told RTL radio station it had taken place the night before. He also accused the smugglers of promising an “El Dorado” to those desperately trying to get to the UK.


He called the shipwreck which killed at least 27 people a “total tragedy”.

Authorities in Lille have said 17 of the victims were men, seven were women and three were children.

Seems they're able to arrest these people rather quickly when there is a more pressing need to do so, perhaps they should have put a bit more effort in beforehand and something like this could have been avoided. I mean where are all the boats coming from - they're not necessarily cheap but with the volumes of people, we're seeing cross that needs a serious supply of boats.

The French taking a half-baked approach to this isn't helpful at all, of course, they've rejected any notion of joint patrols on their territory, can't have the UK coming over and actually making sure these basic patrols are carried out thoroughly and regularly.

The UK still warrants some criticism too - UK surveillance drones seem to only operate Monday - Friday or something???? Sounds like some stereotypical civil service BS, wouldn't be surprised if the drone operators only work 9-5 too now. France doesn't even bother using them at all.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/hot-topics/migrant-crisis/yvette-cooper-migrant-drone-patrols-weekdays/

Speaking to LBC's Nick Ferrari, Ms Cooper said: "We found that only five people had been returned to other European countries and that contrasts to - it used to be several hundred a year.

"We've found other problems, for example, gaps in some of the policing and intelligence cooperation - surveillance cooperation.


"All sorts of problems around drones, for example, not happening on the French side of the Channel and only happening five days a week on the UK side.

The stupid thing is that, long term, cracking down on it properly would help the French too - especially if a big portion are in France because they want to come to the UK, make that harder/remove that incentive and you alleviate the pressure.

The Australian approach seems to be the one to go to to save lives here - process claims outside the UK, it's less attractive for someone to find they're going to a processing facility in Albania etc.. rather than being let loose in the UK while their claim is "processed" and then potentially disappearing anyway if it is rejected.

No. It's exactly how an asylum process should work.

Seems like the total opposite as it would encourage even more migrants to make dangerous crossings across North Africa, across the med etc.. we've already seen what happens when one European leader publicly declares "refugees welcome", you get a mad rush of migrants from all over the place, people smuggling businesses boom and people drown in the med, the channel and get into all sorts of trouble elsewhere on their journey too.

It's a huge faff for the UK to chase up and repatriate failed claimants and the more you encourage the more economic migrants and chancers you'll attract - you'll cause more deaths on the journey, more faffing about with tracking people down, getting them onto repatriation flights etc.. claims should ideally be processed closer to actual conflict zones.

 

[BowdonUK]

Thanks to the people who replied to my last post.

I think one thing we can do is remove failed applicants. I think we should be focusing on that as much as the channel issue.

The UK government is so lax when it comes to immigration control. I think we're going to have to drag Britain up from the Victorian era, that we still seem to keep wheeling on, in to the modern era.

I'm not sure if Boris is capable, or the Tories, or Labour. Most of them have a vested interest in keeping the system as it is. My current next GE vote choice is in the air at the moment.

 

[thenewoc]

So you're against them filling roles we need them in, against them not working at all, and against the humanitarian option of providing a safe alternative to people traffickers?

What's your logic behind all that? Like, what is the thing you think is the problem?

Because I don't believe we do need them in any roles since we have our own population and growth from that I believe is more than adequate now and in the future when more unskilled jobs will be automated. In my opinion we need to be proactive now to prevent a bigger benefits issue further down the line. As for the safe alternative, they already have that as no one is forcing them to engage with people traffickers anyway, they could apply for asylum in any one of the 26 EU countries, some of which they've passed through to get to France.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

Yes legit tourist can only stay up to 90 days but illegal entry can stay unlimited or have a blind eye turned to breaking the law and crossing out of France's border with no checks.

Because of ridiculous libertarian politics "we don't have I.D cards/identity papers! We don't do that here!" our govt doesn't have a clue about who's here legally or illegally. Its an enormous mess. Which leads to the absurd situation that whenever I have to apply for a job or the contract changes I have to jump through endless hoops to prove I'm here with a right to work legally by providing passport i.d. and/or driving licence, NI number, bank statements bills etc when I'm of white anglo saxon descent!

 

[potatolord]

I wasn't proposing an international network of asylum transport to the UK. Simply allowing a process by which we can allow a legit route into the UK instead of the bit where they overfill a dinghy or suffocate in theback of a lorry. Allow the asylum process to begin in France, and bring them here safely.

It's pretty ghoulish to prefer to see people drown, really.

First: I didn't say I'd "prefer to see people drown", so stop making things up. You wouldn't do it to my face, so don't do it here.

Second, yes, you were proposing that. You proposed safe routes, and didn't put any limit on that. You had an opportunity to clarify and didn't.

If you aren't clear, how do you expect to be taken seriously?

Let's get serious: what do you think could be the impact on France and the EU of your latest suggestion?

I don't believe you have an inkling of the issues with what you propose, or the impacts of it, financial and otherwise.

 

[thenewoc]

Thanks to the people who replied to my last post.

I think one thing we can do is remove failed applicants. I think we should be focusing on that as much as the channel issue.

The UK government is so lax when it comes to immigration control. I think we're going to have to drag Britain up from the Victorian era, that we still seem to keep wheeling on, in to the modern era.

I'm not sure if Boris is capable, or the Tories, or Labour. Most of them have a vested interest in keeping the system as it is. My current next GE vote choice is in the air at the moment.

But the UK government are also boxed in with international law with regards to those seeking asylum so it's not as easy as just saying they ought to be deported or stopped from coming. The latter is outside our jurisdiction with regards to those leaving the EU destined for the UK without the EU processing them in their own countries.

 

[Nasher]

But the UK government are also boxed in with international law with regards to those seeking asylum so it's not as easy as just saying they ought to be deported or stopped from coming. The latter is outside our jurisdiction with regards to those leaving the EU destined for the UK without the EU processing them in their own countries.

They would if we started shipping them back to the EU. They came from the EU, so if they have no documents we should assume they are from there and send them back. We are a seperate entity to the EU now.

 

[visibleman]

The Australian approach seems to be the one to go to to save lives here - process claims outside the UK, it's less attractive for someone to find they're going to a processing facility in Albania etc.. rather than being let loose in the UK while their claim is "processed" and then potentially disappearing anyway if it is rejected.

It sounds good on paper but even if you ignore the many controversies around Australia's processing centres, leading to closures and compensation, it'll still be a fairly difficult thing for us to implement as i can't imagine there will be many EU countries sticking up their hands to allow us to construct and operate processing facilities.

They would if we started shipping them back to the EU.

Are the EU required to take them back?
My understanding (happy to proven otherwise) is that they don't have to now we are not part of the EU; so you could just end up filling boats up and not being able to take them anywhere.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

To be honest, this thread is quite well illustrating how utterly based upon 'feelings' rather than logic the anti-asylum crowd is.

Barely a shred of critical analysis between all of you.

If that applies to anything its the pro-migrant lobby its all emotion hand wringing and weeping on camera.

 

[Slam62]

I wasn't proposing an international network of asylum transport to the UK. Simply allowing a process by which we can allow a legit route into the UK instead of the bit where they overfill a dinghy or suffocate in theback of a lorry. Allow the asylum process to begin in France, and bring them here safely.

It's pretty ghoulish to prefer to see people drown, really.

The real issue is them getting into the dinghy. I know they want a better life etc but so do lots of people.

You can't save people from themselves.

 

[inferno]

We have a family friend who is fighting for custody of her grandchild. The daughter can’t look after the kid, the child’s father is from abroad, has been in jail abroad and still has not proven that he is legally allowed to stay in the UK. Social services have said his drinking problems are cultural since he is from Eastern Europe. The child’s father has been appointed a solicitor to fight the grandmother. You can’t make it up. It’s a total shambles.

 

[potatolord]

Thanks to the people who replied to my last post.

I think one thing we can do is remove failed applicants. I think we should be focusing on that as much as the channel issue.

The UK government is so lax when it comes to immigration control. I think we're going to have to drag Britain up from the Victorian era, that we still seem to keep wheeling on, in to the modern era.

I'm not sure if Boris is capable, or the Tories, or Labour. Most of them have a vested interest in keeping the system as it is. My current next GE vote choice is in the air at the moment.

Removals are very difficult in the cases of some countries. An application might fail, but there may be no safe way to return someone to their claimed home country.

Repatriation might require an agreement with another country to allow that.

Some claimants destroy their papers, and there can be considerable doubt about their true country of origin

To be fair, removal rates have always been low.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

Yes it's certainly not something I overly understand. The idea that the majority have links here seems rather tenuous, and spending thousands of pounds to risk their lives getting here illegally doesn't seem to make much sense unless they really do believe this is the land of milk and honey.

The streets are paved with gold, etc. Its the belief that matters not the hard reality. The fact that most of them end up holed up in grotty accomodation in some run down post industrial northern town means they aren't too happy about it when reality sinks in but that doesn't really filter down to those on the other side of the channel

 

[Fatboy123]

The real issue is them getting into the dinghy. I know they want a better life etc but so do lots of people.

You can't save people from themselves.

Thank you for hitting the nail on the head. How do we stop people inc. children getting into dinghies regardless of any asylum system.

Turns out that people are still trying to cross today despite yesterday's tragedy according to the BBC.

 

[thenewoc]

They would if we started shipping them back to the EU. They came from the EU, so if they have no documents we should assume they are from there and send them back. We are a seperate entity to the EU now.

But we couldn't smuggle them back and if going the official route and pitching up to their border with them, I suspect France would bar them entry through that official route for lack of correct citizenship.

 

[cheesyboy]

Thank you for hitting the nail on the head. How do we stop people inc. children getting into dinghies regardless of any asylum system.

It's really simple to imagine the existence of a safe option. It's not like we get holiday makers crossing in a dinghy instead of a ferry.