Migrants - just curious......

[sunshinewithrain]

Are they genuinely so desperate that they will get in a rubber dingy to cross a dangerous sea to get to England?
OR
Are they 'sold' a dream?
OR
A mixture of both! And we don'it understand it properly .......
It's so sad all these people dying trying to cross the sea in such a dangerous way ......

@Hunglikeapolevaulter That's incredibly naive. Many won't be eligible for asylum or legal migration so of course they'll still come.

But if they've bypassed the legal route we send them straight home without passing go.

The current system's not working. Rwanda or any other system with permanent deportation to a 'safe' was no deterrent. Apart from anything else it lacked anything like the required capacity.

It was for the consumption of the gullible in the UK and nothing else.

Meloni is doing what we've done already; paying countries where boats launch to stop them. Albania, apparently intended primarily for young men from countries where an Asylum claim is unlkely to succeed will be an interesting watch.

There are far too many countries where war has been allowed to drag on and on and no serious international efforts are made to stop it.

International law says that governments cannot treat their own citizens inhumanely yet Sudan, Syria, Eritrea and others are doing just this. It is unsurprising that people want to go somewhere safer where they think they will be happy. The United Nations was formed to deal with this and yet they apparently do absolutely nothing. It's great that people can flee to safety, if too many people have to flee the system breaks down.

But there are also countries that are just a bit shit, like Algeria and Gambia. According to an article I read many young men in Gambia it is a rite of passage to come to Europe and they cannot find a bride until they have been - taking years sometimes, and risking their lives to do so.

We are seeing what is happening with the rise of anti-immigration parties across Europe. Western Europe cannot deal with everyone who would like to come here from whichever dysfunctional shithole or other they were born in. Many of them end up involved in drugs, crime and prostitution, trapped into working for criminal gangs and afraid that something will happen to their families if they don't comply. The only people benefitting from this are mafias from various countries, and bleeding heart liberals would be far better to support serious action against people trafficking so we could offer sanctuary to those who really need it.

Right - this is the issue. Although employers are supposed to do ID checks, they often don't, because it's not like they are planning on paying NI or PAYE tax either. The chances of being caught are extremely slim, and the consequences slight.

The broader issue about ID is that it's basically impossible to do anything in many countries without an ID card: access housing, education services, medical services, even get a book out at the library. This is simply not the case in the UK where our only bit of identifying information (NI number) is used for tax and employment purposes (by law abiding employers at least) and nothing else. It is very, very easy to exist under the radar in the UK compared to most other European countries.

ID cards in European countries are tied to citizen registers - when you move into a local authority area you have to register with that authority, which also generally opens up access to things like education. LAs actually know who is living where, how many children they have, what age profile they have, what their immigration status is etc.

In the UK LA's literally have no idea who is living where - the only thing they have to go on is the electoral role which is hardly reliable.

Really? What evidence do you have? And even if it were true, their marriage took place here in the UK, where they would have had to provide their birth certificates to register the marriage, where such a marriage would be illegal. Honestly, some people. I now understand why you had to check if you misunderstood! 🙄

We do pay France to stop them, you'd have to be realistic about how hard it is even the French say it's delusional to expect every sand dune at night can be monitored.

Australia use a system as a deterrent and it does work, they are not 'gullible' as you post, they are happy with the outcome and no one will change it politically

Have you seen how many drownings there are across the Med, are you willing to have similar to get the same results as Meloni?

Btw Albania is for processing, people still need to arrive in the UK or Italy to be sent for processing

I also question the method of deterrence in Libya and Tunisia given there is little scrutiny, in comparison to the methods available to the French border police on their coast

@EasternStandard I get the point about Albania and processing though some news reports this morning were saying that those who fit the criteria to go there (males from countries with a low success rate for Asylum) could be taken straight there by the rescue boats.

How can any of us born here understand?! How?

The refugee council puts the grant rate at 75% so there may be some change due to this, it's not really the low success rate countries that are the issue

On Starmer seeking advice on what to do the answer from Italy this is relevant

EU 'willingly created a cemetery'

Under the current system, Mr Schroeder said the IOM was concerned that "SAR gaps, alleged delays in rescue, and reported lack of response to distress calls may be contributing to tragedies on this route".

It said there was a lack of SAR co-ordination and that "illegal pullbacks" were being conducted by the Libyan coastguard, which the EU has equipped and trained. In addition, last month, the EU signed a $118m (£90m) deal with Tunisia to try to reduce "irregular" migration.

NGOs have also criticised a new law in Italy requiring their rescue vessels to head to often distant ports after an operation, rather than continuing to patrol for more boats in distress. They say this reduces their time in areas where shipwrecks are more common.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66478091

So he may ask but the reply will be very far off his original pledge

The public may well accept similar but it is Labour and very far from 'safe and legal routes' or 'smash the gangs'

But why risk your own (and in some cases your children’s) life to be closer to relatives, even though you’re already somewhere safe? Is it really worth it?
To me, it seems what @EasternStandard said make more sense, that the traffickers are selling those dangerous passages as safe.

Do you feel safe in a strange country in which you can't speak the language, don't know the rules, dont have any money, are hoping they will look after you even though you know that many hate you and would build walls to keep you out?

Of course you head to community , where at least one person might help you

I'm not offering a solution, just pointing out it isn't simple.

Do you really think a woman with a degree in computer science wants to go to Italy to be a prostitute?

I would feel safer in a strange country where I don’t speak the language than in a unseaworthy dinghy, yes.
Fwiw, my own family has been in a similar situation.
They wanted to leave their home country to escape an oppressive regime and move to a Western country where they had friends and also had some basic knowledge of the language.
The country of their choice wasn’t accepting new arrivals at the time, so they ended up moving somewhere else entirely, where they didn’t speak the language at all (or knew the rules, or had any money). It definitely wasn’t their first choice, but they made it work.

You know you don’t have to marry someone to have a child with them don’t you?

Idk maybe they think they will earn more or find someone to marry in Europe.

You don’t have a solution because you can’t fix every country issue. You just do not let your own country get ruined. It’s so soft. These traffickers and the women bring nothing good, stop feeling sorry for them and have a zero tolerance, Italy should deport. We shouldn’t accept the women because they were trafficked, they can go home, or you create a draw to the UK and a new precedent route/story.

Because for most of them the crossing, which the vast majority complete safely, is a walk in the park compared to what they've already endured. And yes of course, the traffickers will obviously assure their customers that it is perfectly safe, that they have a 100% track record etc, not like those OTHER traffickers...

Same , but we are not allowed to talk about it on here as any criticism of migrants is racism in mumsnet world. They don’t understand the complexity of living in poor areas that have waves of immigration. My 3rd generation south Asian neighbours and I both feel the same frustrations with the influx of Eastern Europeans we have in our area. Not all immigration works but it’s taboo to say it. Everyone thinks it’s about skin colour but it’s not. If you are here with ambition to make money and send money home you often are not interested in investing in and caring for your neighbourhood.

I worked full time through both degrees, the study was 'full time' and the job was full time hours. I just worked each around the other. Whats unusual about that.

Why wont you say waht the degree is by the way?

They dont need to be escapting that from France

They are in a dingy, because a dingy is the only route and option available for them to get to the UK, which they are entitled to do, you can claim asylum in any country, the conventions are clear on that.

But there is no other physical way of getting to the UK, you cant claim asylum outside of the UK and there isnt a legal route to come and then claim asylum, so your only method is by boat.

It used to be lorries and shipping containers.

How safe do you think their journeys are to those countries?

Have you ever heard multiple reports of different journeys?

What do you think happens, that someone pops on the National Express in Ethiopia and ends up in nice safe Italy. Bagsy the window seat.

Why do you find it difficult to remain on point with a specific scenario? Do you just struggle with detail? (That was a rhetorical question.) @Overheater has written here that her grandparents came to the UK in the 1930s when her grandmother was 5 and her grandfather was 8 so they would have been 25 and 28 respectively in 1950 - a time when people did not routinely have children out of "wed-lock" because it was considered shameful to do so. I guess you just want to question if @Overheater 's grandparents had illegitimate children in addition to committing incest? Honestly.🙄
Maybe you've heard the phrase: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt". Clearly that ship has sailed for you on this occasion, but you might like to bear it in mind for the future.

@NuanceExists

Yes and not contributing to the country they are now in but using our services such as NHS no doubt

How is that good for the UK

So just because you’re technically entitled to something you’ll put your life at risk for it?
Even though other, safer options might be available, like moving from France to another EU country without having to cross the sea?

So now you're claiming that all refugees' motivations and experiences are exactly the same and identical to your family's, whilst previously posting "The Refugee Council knows what every single refugee does or doesn’t know?" Ludicrous argument.🙄

If the migrants are processed quickly and allowed to work they will do and therefore contribute. At which point, yes they are good for the UK, especially with a declining birth rate here, and worries about how we can afford to continue paying the state pension to our pensioners.
People trotting out this stuff need to stop reading the daily fail.