|
Post by johnc on Nov 26, 2021 9:51:26 GMT
Have a read at this and tell me we don't have idiots making decisions! Is someone setting up Boris for a fall by writing him a Peppa Pig speech and advising him to go in hard against the French? I don't know who decided to take such a hard line or who decided to publish it but I don't think kicking someone where you know it hurts is ever going to be the best way to start negotiations especially when the other side would be making changes to help us. I know the safety of the migrants is also high on the agenda but nations have shown time and time again that their national and political interests will always trump the needs and safety of the poor migrants and refugees. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59428311
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Nov 26, 2021 10:18:24 GMT
Thr French couldn't give a shit and haven't for a long time. As long as it isn't their problem they are happy to let migrants cross IMO.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Nov 26, 2021 10:38:40 GMT
I think the letter's proposals (I didn't read the whole letter just the proposals in the article )look eminently reasonable.
The French didn't try very hard to stop people when we were in the EU and are trying even less hard now. The photo in the paper yesterday of a French police pick up sitting watching a load of migrants carrying a boat across a beach pretty much sums the situation up.
"political interests will always trump the needs and safety of the poor migrants and refugees.". Ultimately, surely a government's first responsibility is to UK subjects and non-UK citizens legally living here. Those wanting to come here illegally should not be a priority. Far too many of the boat people look like healthy young men. They are economic migrants wanting to live here.
It is a tragedy that so many drowned this week in the boat capsize. It's only because we are kind enough to fish thousands out of the sea that the numbers drowning are not way, way higher. If the French are not willing to deal with the problem at source, maybe MI6 / SAS / SBS could deal with the smugglers? That would be the best way to stop the traffic. If the smugglers knew that they were pretty certain to get a bullet in their head then they might think twice. I am sure the French know very well who the smugglers are. The French could hardly complain - after all, they sunk a Greenpeace trawler that was annoying them.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Nov 26, 2021 11:30:42 GMT
Surely the UK's position has to be to try and get the French to prevent people crossing. My point was that by telling the French that they should take the immigrants back and publicly publishing the letter, there is far less likelihood that the French will do anything. I agree that they aren't doing much now but doing less isn't going to be in anyone's interests.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Nov 26, 2021 13:21:48 GMT
Absolutely tragic what happened to those migrants trying to cross the Channel.
The Australians had a similar problem and stopped it dead by rounding up all the occupants of the boats and taking them to Nauru or some similar island. The migrants were told in no uncertain terms that attempting a passage like that would never get them into Australia. Once word got round that paying smugglers to try this route was a non-starter the demand for their services dried up.
|
|
|
Post by chipbutty on Nov 26, 2021 13:26:37 GMT
It's position should be to stop making the UK an attractive destination - then it won't matter what the French do.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Nov 26, 2021 15:16:00 GMT
Its position should be to stop making the UK an attractive destination - then it won't matter what the French do. This. However there are other issues, amongst which: 1. When questioned many migrants said they wanted to come to the UK because relatives are already here. 2. Many said they speak a little English and certainly have more understanding of English than French in reading and speech terms. 3. France actually has far more asylum seekers than the UK. The first two points mean the UK is on a hiding to nothing in trying to deter migrants. As mentioned elsewhere once a group of one culture is together they’ll live like that culture if they can and no local laws will be a deterrent. Historically the UK’s need for cheap labour has lead to huge pockets of different cultures living here. There’s only such a thing as multiculturalism if each and every one accepts the others at an individual level - never going to happen. [mutters something about Enoch Powell under his breath] The third point is an indication that (a) France don’t care about the UK problem as they have their own and (b) the UK is not as badly off as it likes to imagine itself to be - imagine if that was Germany across the water which has an asylum and immigration problem unimaginable to UK whingers.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Nov 26, 2021 15:29:42 GMT
Back to OP: Johnson’s use of Twitter and waffle-speak appeals to those that got him to power. Substance isn’t important to he or they: telling Frenchie to shove his immigrants up his arse achieves all required goals.
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Nov 26, 2021 16:14:58 GMT
Bloody tragic and is only going to get worse. The only real way around it is to have an agreement with the EU on how many migrants we take and the French, Polish or whoever takes these people at entry, need to detain all migrants and dish them out fairly amongst european countries.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Nov 26, 2021 16:34:22 GMT
I think more needs to be done to stop these migrants crossing the channel but the solution is not to patrol the beaches or try pushing them back when they're in the water or hoping we can just return them to France immediately without processing them (it's illegal under international law for a start).
These migrants have not just magically appeared on a French beach having nipped over on a flight from Kabul to Charles de Gall. Many have been smuggled overland for months either in trucks or on foot and the channel crossing is just the last of a series of perilous journeys. Once in camps often they don't have a choice when they make a crossing or what vessel they travel in. Often the people smugglers threaten to kill them if they don't get in no matter how concerned they are about the flimsiness of the dinghy they're presented with. More needs to be done internationally to tackle the smuggling gangs further up the chain. Trying to deal with the migrants on the beach is like arresting a street corner drug dealer and thinking you've won the war on drugs.
Lastly I personally feel more needs to be done to improve public compassion for these people. The rhetoric in a lot of the media in this country is incredibly dehumanising and a lot of the usual suspects whipping up such hatred were only a few weeks ago moaning about the lack of foreigners coming over to help us with the harvest. Well here's a ready workforce who are desperate to come here and work to make a better life for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Roadrunner on Nov 26, 2021 17:47:53 GMT
[quote author=" Alex" source="/post/83894/thread" timestamp="1637944462" Lastly I personally feel more needs to be done to improve public compassion for these people. The rhetoric in a lot of the media in this country is incredibly dehumanising and a lot of the usual suspects whipping up such hatred were only a few weeks ago moaning about the lack of foreigners coming over to help us with the harvest. Well here's a ready workforce who are desperate to come here and work to make a better life for themselves. [/quote] Leaving aside the rest of it for now I think this is what really needs to be highlighted here. It is easy for us to condemn from the comfort of our UK lifestyle, where a shortage of a particular flavour of Walkers crisps makes the headlines, but we have to remember that real fathers, mothers, sons and daughters are in the midst of this horrific situation and using them as political pawns in a cross-channel slanging match is abhorrent.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Nov 26, 2021 17:59:55 GMT
Bloody tragic and is only going to get worse. The only real way around it is to have an agreement with the EU on how many migrants we take and the French, Polish or whoever takes these people at entry, need to detain all migrants and dish them out fairly amongst european countries. What do you say to the people who want to live here, apply officially, and wait their turn, all the while watching these people jump the queue? I seem to remember a UN report saying there were 800 million potential economic migrants in the World. Assuming only half want to come to Europe how many do we take? Circa 30 million or so pro rata?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2021 18:58:34 GMT
There was a report on the Mexico border, reporters interviewed several of the more presentable candidates and several said "Immigration is a right not a crime".
With various governments creating a migrant crisis we all have to protect our borders.
More than one way to pursue a war by any other means. No, not a schmiracy, just how it is. How many of the migrants are ISIL etc?
A minefield to get through and we are going to be wrong even when we are right on it, no error.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Nov 26, 2021 19:36:40 GMT
I hate to hear talk about whether they could be ISIL. Just last night there was a radio phone in where a guy was asking "how can we be sure they're not coming over with malicious intent?". Ffs you can walk down the street in some parts of this country and a British person will mug you or beat you up or worse. We've even had a case this year of a Police officer raping and murdering a random member of the public. Fact is you can never know if a fellow human being means you harm or not but the reason you don't barricade yourself in your home is that you rely on the goodness of human nature to trust that the overwhelming majority are just decent people. The migrants crossing the channel are not marauding hoard of vikings coming to rape and pillage Dover! It's not an invasion.
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Nov 26, 2021 21:11:06 GMT
Perhaps not, but what are we supposed to do? That's OK, you can jump the queue because you came in on a rubber boat.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Nov 26, 2021 22:14:25 GMT
Perhaps not, but what are we supposed to do? That's OK, you can jump the queue because you came in on a rubber boat. Doesn't matter how they got here, they're here and that's that. They need to be processed as an asylum seeker in the same way any other migrant would. The point I made was that you don't just push them back in the sea this end or have patrols on the beach in France stopping the launch of a dinghy and think the problem's sorted, it's just a sticking plaster solution. We need to work together internationally to deal with the migrant issue further up the chain. Some of that is dealing with the people smuggling gangs who prey on these people and some of it is working with the countries they come from so they're not so desperate to leave. Perhaps not bombing the shit out of civilian populations in foreign lands would help too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2021 23:39:32 GMT
I hate to hear talk about whether they could be ISIL. Just last night there was a radio phone in where a guy was asking "how can we be sure they're not coming over with malicious intent?". Ffs you can walk down the street in some parts of this country and a British person will mug you or beat you up or worse. We've even had a case this year of a Police officer raping and murdering a random member of the public. Fact is you can never know if a fellow human being means you harm or not but the reason you don't barricade yourself in your home is that you rely on the goodness of human nature to trust that the overwhelming majority are just decent people. The migrants crossing the channel are not marauding hoard of vikings coming to rape and pillage Dover! It's not an invasion. I get your point but, how many of the attackers of the last few years have been asylum seekers?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Nov 27, 2021 8:41:36 GMT
Perhaps not, but what are we supposed to do? That's OK, you can jump the queue because you came in on a rubber boat. Doesn't matter how they got here, they're here and that's that. They need to be processed as an asylum seeker in the same way any other migrant would. The point I made was that you don't just push them back in the sea this end or have patrols on the beach in France stopping the launch of a dinghy and think the problem's sorted, it's just a sticking plaster solution. We need to work together internationally to deal with the migrant issue further up the chain. Some of that is dealing with the people smuggling gangs who prey on these people and some of it is working with the countries they come from so they're not so desperate to leave. Perhaps not bombing the shit out of civilian populations in foreign lands would help too. They can’t be processed as asylum seekers as they have already passed through many safe countries where they should have claimed asylum. If they’ve made it this far they are economic migrants and should go to the back of the queue. True asylum seekers should be processed in the first safe country they arrive in and then equally distributed among other safe countries.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Nov 27, 2021 9:03:07 GMT
I'm sorry Bob but on this one you are wrong. International law does not require a person fleeing their home to state their claim for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. If it was then under the presumed definition of safe as being a country that is not war torn then most people leaving Syria would have to, by law, put their asylum claim forward in Turkey and indeed many do. But once they get past Turkey they're not now automatically economic migrants. They have a right to stake an asylum claim where THEY feel safe. Given that as a country we are surrounded on all sides by nations deemed safe we should really not have ANY asylum seekers at all by your definition. It shouldn't even be a term we Brits have ever heard of. www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Nov 27, 2021 16:37:42 GMT
That then makes them illegal aliens in the safe countries they don’t apply for asylum in if one presumes they don’t have the correct visas for transit, which of course is unlikely otherwise they would be automatically classed as economic migrants to the country they try to claim asylum in. Another reason why France doesn’t give a fuck about them - they don’t seek asylum and they are in France (the whole EU, actually) illegally.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Nov 27, 2021 16:46:17 GMT
With respect, that's nonsense. If you're fleeing for your life you go to the nearest safest place. You don't travel through safe countries like Greece, Italy, Spain, France because you don't feel safe. By definition you are safe in those countries. If that was the case I could get on a plane to the US and claim asylum there and state it was the only place I feel safe. Asylum seekers should go the nearest safe place and then apply to be re-settled. They would then be allocated a country based on international agreements between countries. Everyone should have equal opportunity and no one should jump the queue. The only way to ensure this evil and dangerous trade is stopped is to make it clear that anyone arriving on boats and in the back of lorries (remember that tragedy?) does not gain entry to the country and are placed at the back of the queue. But actually if you look at the make up of the people on the boats, very few are genuine asylum seekers, most are people who have got together a lump sum of money by saving or borrowing off family with a view to making a better life for themselves somewhere else. I'm not knocking them for that but there should be a proper process.
|
|
|
Post by Boxer6 on Nov 27, 2021 19:32:20 GMT
With respect, that's nonsense. If you're fleeing for your life you go to the nearest safest place. You don't travel through safe countries like Greece, Italy, Spain, France because you don't feel safe. By definition you are safe in those countries. If that was the case I could get on a plane to the US and claim asylum there and state it was the only place I feel safe. Asylum seekers should go the nearest safe place and then apply to be re-settled. They would then be allocated a country based on international agreements between countries. Everyone should have equal opportunity and no one should jump the queue. The only way to ensure this evil and dangerous trade is stopped is to make it clear that anyone arriving on boats and in the back of lorries (remember that tragedy?) does not gain entry to the country and are placed at the back of the queue. But actually if you look at the make up of the people on the boats, very few are genuine asylum seekers, most are people who have got together a lump sum of money by saving or borrowing off family with a view to making a better life for themselves somewhere else. I'm not knocking them for that but there should be a proper process. If you did, you'd be the "one in, one out" for an American patient of ours who's doing exactly the same, only in reverse!
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Nov 27, 2021 22:30:38 GMT
With respect, that's nonsense... And, with respect, there is no rule that says they have to claim asylum at the first safe country they arrive at. They can do so wherever they wish, which is why those who do land on these shores immediate give themselves up to the border forces. That doesn't mean that their crossing of the borders on the way here is legal, the reason they resort to these smuggling gangs is because the queue you're asking them to join the back of doesn't really exist. We, as one of the richest nations on earth need to be doing a lot more to help the refugee crisis that exists in the middle east, especially as we were one of the western nations that helped cause it. Simply put we do far too little and our media rhetoric is that these people don't deserve our sympathy let alone our help. That's not to say we're worse than other countries, we're not and the migrants crossing the continent get treated worse in some of the other lands they pass through. This is why my earlier point was that we need to be doing much more further downstream, particularly in tackling the people smugglers but also in providing more visas to those who want to come over here so they can do so legitimately not in the back of trucks or on flimsy dinghies. That doesn't necessarily mean we have a free for all but it does mean we have to take more of our fair share. And for those that do come here we need to show them a bit more dignity than housing them in a disused army barracks that was no longer deemed suitable for human habitation by the MOD.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Nov 28, 2021 10:24:44 GMT
Two questions:
1. How many illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, economic migrants should the UK resettle each year? Please state a figure or range.
2. What do you do when the above quota is reached and the boats keep coming?
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Nov 28, 2021 12:27:33 GMT
I think population density needs to be taken into account. As an island nation, there is only so much room and we are pretty densely populated as it is. Interestingly, Germany is very similar to us in terms of density, however France, Spain and the Eastern countries are a lot less. www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=21000&r=eu&l=en
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Nov 28, 2021 13:19:07 GMT
Two questions: 1. How many illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, economic migrants should the UK resettle each year? Please state a figure or range. 2. What do you do when the above quota is reached and the boats keep coming? To be perfectly honest I'm in no way qualified to answer either question and maybe there is no real answer. It is clear that we don't do enough but that doesn't mean I can give you a figure of what enough is because it's an ever changing scenario. In the coming decades the increasing instability of many parts of the developing world either through war or climate change will see the demand for asylum increase which we will have to meet. What we can't do is take the view that all those who take the difficult decision to cross the channel should be sitting at home and applying for a place in some imaginary queue to get in.
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Nov 28, 2021 13:29:54 GMT
Two questions: 1. How many illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, economic migrants should the UK resettle each year? Please state a figure or range. 2. What do you do when the above quota is reached and the boats keep coming? To be perfectly honest I'm in no way qualified to answer either question and maybe there is no real answer. It is clear that we don't do enough but that doesn't mean I can give you a figure of what enough is because it's an ever changing scenario. In the coming decades the increasing instability of many parts of the developing world either through war or climate change will see the demand for asylum increase which we will have to meet. What we can't do is take the view that all those who take the difficult decision to cross the channel should be sitting at home and applying for a place in some imaginary queue to get in. I don't thnk anyone here is saying that! I also don't think we can welcome with open arms everyone who comes in on a rubber boat, otherwise it sends the message that it is OK to come in that way and it snowballs from there. Like I said, we are pretty densely populated as it is and there has to be a limit to the numbers we can accept. There is enough pressure on housing/doctors/hospitals/schools and other public services as it is. Where do you propose the extra money comes from to fund all the property, infrastructure and services to support carte blanche acceptance of asylum immigration that you appear to be alluding to? We can agree that there isn't an easy answer, however.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Nov 28, 2021 14:21:24 GMT
Bob has twice referred to the migrants joining the back of the queue but can't explain where this queue is or what it looks like.
I totally agree we have to stop the crossing of the channel being seen as a viable option but we don't achieve that by sending individual boats back or trying to instantly repatriate anyone coming across back to France. It is the people smugglers that are organising the crossings not the migrants they send so the action needs to be taken further up the chain.
Look, I don't think I know any better than you guys or that I have the answers but I do believe that the attitude of our government and a lot of the people of this country is wrong and is focused on the demonising the individuals coming across the channel whilst ignoring the bigger picture of why they're doing so and how they've come to the point of crossing.
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Nov 28, 2021 14:39:14 GMT
What Bob was getting at was that anyone trying to enter illegally, shouldn't be prioritised - i.e treated as low priority due to their illegal actions. That's how I read it - I didn't take it as literally as you typed it.
I actually don't think the attitude of government is wrong per se. They need to protect services and not allow a free for all. Rock and hard place.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Nov 28, 2021 15:22:46 GMT
Two questions: 1. How many illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, economic migrants should the UK resettle each year? Please state a figure or range. 2. What do you do when the above quota is reached and the boats keep coming? Why isn't the United Nations working with the "bad governments" so that people do not want to flee their Home Country in droves ? This to me is one of the biggest failings of the UN, if not THE biggest failing. Nobody should feel threatened in their home land such that they feel that they "have to" seek asylum elsewhere
|
|