The English Channel

[Blackjack Davy]

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.

Going through the asylum system takes years apparently and they have to stay at approved accomodation and aren't allowed to work which is ridiculous in itself, much better to pitch up illegally and disappear into the general population and work in some illegal backstreet operation or sweat shop

Eventually of course because the govt is utterly incapable of keeping a track of anything Boris will grant a general amnesty to illegals as he's done in the past as its far too much effort to try and get a lid on it. And so they keep on coming.

 

[danlightbulb]

Tbh, intervention is what's caused an awful lot of the instability in the past couple of decades.

My view is not finishing the job is what's caused the issues. We go in to a place, we don't finish the job, we leave them under-resourced, and we allow their old ways to return.

Afghanistan case in point. Fix it, or nuke it.

 

[inogen]

The first safe country they land in, is perfectly sufficient for their safety, which is what they seek right?

All well and good. Except that's not what the international laws around asylum say. And with good reason. Who decides what countries are safe?

As the law stands, it's up to the person seeking asylum to decide where they themselves consider safe, NOT the country that might end up being bound to care for them.

Considering we have a government that sees being hard on immigration and asylum (to the point of encouraging them to drown in the sea) as easy vote winners, you think it's a good idea (or in any way lawful) to allow them to prescribe what a "safe country" in order to avoid having to take genuine cases in?

If the government was actually serious about reducing the problem, the first step would be make it easier for genuine cases to successfully claim asylum. Reduce the time it takes for applications to be processed. That would immediately reduce the number of non-genuine claimants who are playing the system and mean the UK was playing a part in humanitarian efforts and doing so in good faith. The problem is the UK government has no interest in doing that and would rather see people drown, or their new idea, lock them up in concentration camps abroad (in an attempt to avoid the horrific images of drowned children). Genuine asylum seekers or not.

 

[danlightbulb]

All well and good. Except that's not what the international laws around asylum say. And with good reason. Who decides what countries are safe?

As the law stands, it's up to the person seeking asylum to decide where they themselves consider safe, NOT the country that might end up being bound to care for them.

Considering we have a government that sees being hard on immigration and asylum (to the point of encouraging them to drown in the sea) as easy vote winners, you think it's a good idea (or in any way lawful) to allow them to prescribe what a "safe country" in order to avoid having to take genuine cases in?

An international committee decides what is safe and what isn't. On this committee I would have EU, UK, USA, Canada, Australia, Japan.

 

[inogen]

An international committee decides what is safe and what isn't. On this committee I would have EU, UK, USA, Canada, Australia, Japan.

Just another layer of bureaucracy. The key to all of this is the speed that asylum cases take to administer.

 

[Semple]

What I want to know is what is the incentive to come to Britain?

They come here for the nice cold weather.

Oh and the rain!

 

[danlightbulb]

Just another layer of bureaucracy. The key to all of this is the speed that asylum cases take to administer.

I agree they should be processed quickly where possible. This also means that a 'no' decision returns the claimant to their home country quickly as well, not letting them linger in camps putting forward appeal after appeal using taxpayer funding.

But this idea of allowing asylum seekers to pass through perfectly safe countries before reaching here, no I don't agree with that. I can understand an asylum seeker not wanting to linger in Turkey, but if he/she reaches greece, France, Italy, there is no reason to move on. To facilitate this we should agree to take a share of those asylum seekers that those countries process, provided they meet our criteria for asylum.

 

[inogen]

But this idea of allowing asylum seekers to pass through perfectly safe countries before reaching here, no I don't agree with that. I can understand an asylum seeker not wanting to linger in Turkey, but if he/she reaches greece, France, Italy, there is no reason to move on. To facilitate this we should agree to take a share of those asylum seekers that those countries process, provided they meet our criteria for asylum.

To an extent, I agree, but it's far easier to let the claimant decide where they want to claim asylum. That's fairest to them. Remember, these people are refugees. They need all the help they can get.

Often they have friends, family and speak the language of the country that they want asylum in and therefore stand the best chance of becoming a productive citizen there.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

It's simple to fix, just adopt the stuff from France that makes these people not want to stay in France and are willing risk their life sailing the channel in a dinghy.

The simple solution would be to turn the boats around back onto french soil however as soon as they're in the water they're almost certain to get picked up by the RNLI and ferried over to the UK and they know it. Last night the french equivalent stopped to offer help to a migrant boat whose engine was in trouble but they declined the offer and carried on regardless, its not clear if it was the same boat that later sunk.

The French govt of course, don't want them back on their soil its easier to shunt the problem on to someone else i.e. us.

 

[danlightbulb]

To an extent, I agree, but it's far easier to let the claimant decide where they want to claim asylum. That's fairest to them. Remember, these people are refugees. They need all the help they can get.

Often they have friends, family and speak the language of the country that they want asylum in and therefore stand the best chance of becoming a productive citizen there.

There has to be some caution. Some of them are criminals and terrorists, and so it is critical that the process is robust enough to weed these out.

If someone has ties to a particular country like you say, this should form part of the assessment criteria (I assume it does already).

But anyway, all of this is still reactionary. We need to be fixing the countries they are from.

 

[inogen]

We need to be fixing the countries they are from.

Well, again. Attempts at "fixing" these countries are often to blame for them wanting to leave. We don't have a good track record of success at doing that, largely because we think that fixing them involves selling them arms and encouraging corruption.

 

[Brazo]

We are currently in net negative migration and with plenty of jobs to fill so tbh they can’t come here fast enough!

I used to wonder why people were so desperate to leave France they were willing to risk their lives but everyday I see drivers flinging themselves into oncoming traffic so they don’t have to wait 5 seconds behind the obstacle on their side of the road and if people risk their lives everyday just to save 5 seconds…

 

[danlightbulb]

Well, again. Attempts at "fixing" these countries are often to blame for them wanting to leave. We don't have a good track record of success at doing that, largely because we think that fixing them involves selling them arms and encouraging corruption.

Yes because as I said before, we don't finish the job properly.

See the problem with all of this is we're going round in circles. Something fundamental needs to change in our strategy to break this loop. I personally believe this should be complete takeover of problematic countries, removal of their government and military, and re-education of their people. All under western leadership and control. I.e instead of making these people come to us, we take Britain to them.

 

[visibleman]

Albania has now denied it would allow it though, but I guess the idea in principle is there, just need to find the appropriate country and try to implement the Australian solution.

Australia's implementation isn't exactly a shining example of how to do it; in fact, it was/is a bit of a disaster considering it caused an influx of seekers/refugees that required assistance from the US, still landed Australia with thousands being flown in for medical help and ultimately closed their biggest (arguably) facility. And that's on top all of controversies surrounding the actual camps and the people being housed (more stored if you read what some of them had to endure).

You've also got to satisfy international and European human rights laws which was one of the many reasons why the idea was swatted when Labour flaunted it and one of the biggest hurdles as there will no doubt be backlash from the EU and, potentially, other allies which will deter possible candidates (to house our facilities).

And even if you do manage to find a country that's happy to house a processing facility, there's also the cost to the country. Various reports* suggest it was costing Australia (in the region of) $600k (~£300k) per person per year for offshore processing.

I'm not entirely against the idea but, imo, i think it'll be one almighty struggle for our government to implement offshore processing and for it to actually work without it ending up a complete **** show.

* will hold my hands up and say i'm not entirely sure how accurate they are but one report here - https://asrc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/1912-At-What-Cost-report.pdf

 

[cheesyboy]

Yes because as I said before, we don't finish the job properly.

Our last big peak of asylum entries was in the early 2000s when we were kicking off our "intervention" in Iraq and Afghanistan (rather than when we finished)

In both cases, historical links between UK and those countries were why our asylum applications were much higher than our European equivalents. Perhaps that's why so many braindead posters still say we take too many? Unable to move on from 20 years ago.

 

[potatolord]

Yes because as I said before, we don't finish the job properly.

See the problem with all of this is we're going round in circles. Something fundamental needs to change in our strategy to break this loop. I personally believe this should be complete takeover of problematic countries, removal of their government and military, and re-education of their people. All under western leadership and control. I.e instead of making these people come to us, we take Britain to them.

The UK cannot just force other countries to be as they would like them to be. Religious, tribal and other issues in other countries are, honestly, none of our business.

The recent experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq show that it's not possible to force change.

The abject failure of nation building in Bosnia is another excellent example of good intentions not being enough.

The only things we can effect are things within our own country, and that is where action has to be taken.

 

[danlightbulb]

Our last big peak of asylum entries was in the early 2000s when we were kicking off our "intervention" in Iraq and Afghanistan (rather than when we finished)

In both cases, historical links between UK and those countries were why our asylum applications were much higher than our European equivalents. Perhaps that's why so many braindead posters still say we take too many? Unable to move on from 20 years ago.

Makes sense, there is a hurdle to get over when a country is first invaded obviously. There is extensive disruption before it gets better. Means to an ends.

Afghanistan should have been a 100 year project of re-culturing their society under our control. It could then have acted as a middle eastern hub for asylum seekers in that area. A new, sunny, oil rich 'New Britain', it could have been.

The UK cannot just force other countries to be as they would like them to be. Religious, tribal and other issues in other countries are, honestly, none of our business.

The recent experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq show that it's not possible to force change.

The abject failure of nation building in Bosnia is another excellent example of good intentions not being enough.

The only things we can effect are things within our own country, and that is where action has to be taken.

I disagree entirely. We just don't go far enough. Yes we can, given long enough, remove tribal and religious ties. We can, given long enough, drive new investment into these countries and make them productive again. We essentially need to terraform their land and culture. That is what we should be doing because, completely objectively, they will be better off under our way of life than their current way of life. It would be for their own good, but will take a hundred years plus to drive the necessary cultural changes, in the same way that our own culture has taken hundreds of years to evolve.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Makes sense, there is a hurdle to get over when a country is first invaded obviously. There is extensive disruption before it gets better. Means to an ends.

Afghanistan should have been a 100 year project of re-culturing their society under our control. It could then have acted as a middle eastern hub for asylum seekers in that area. A new, sunny, oil rich 'New Britain', it could have been.

You do realise that colonisation leads to terrible atrocities, whether that's the British Empire, Third Reich or any other incarnation of this approach?

 

[danlightbulb]

You do realise that colonisation leads to terrible atrocities, whether that's the British Empire, Third Reich or any other incarnation of this approach?

In the past it did, no reason it would have to now, we have moved on and become more aware of what is right and wrong and human rights. Why would we allow atrocities to occur now in this day and age, under our rule?

 

[Nasher]

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.

This is why Australia dump them all on an island. Or they sit in a migrant camp forever here. Until they are traced or actually own up to who they are.

Can't just let unknown people loose inside the country, they might be wanted criminals or dangerous. Can't always send them back.

France etc seem to think that once they set off on their boats it's no longer their problem, so they aren't doing much about it. They are operating from France, so it's France's problem to fix.