AIBU to wonder why France is being blamed for allowing migrants to cross the English channel to uk?

[Rebbecia1234]

Surely, UK has as much responsibility as any other country to accept asylum seekers fleeing from desperate situations? Why should France be tasked with the responsibility of preventing asylum seekers to cross the English channel in boats to the UK?

Because France should be processing them when they arrive there - but they'd rather let them take their chances and possibly drown trying to get to England.

These are all very valid points. I am therefore wondering why the UK government doesn't police the UK border directly instead of paying the French to do this. I'm not really understanding why policing of the border must be down to France.

Because we are an island

Because the rules are that each country returns refugees back over the nearest border

Because France does not police the border into the UK, but is quite good about slamming doors shut when anyone here suggests they do what they are legally obliged to, let alone what they aggreed to be paid for.

You must remember the horrendous 'camps' at Calais? Fucking awful places but here the media and bleeding hearts whinged about the 'concentration camp/prisons' refugees are kept in here in the UK.

And now we have the idea of 'offshore' camps, e.g. Rwanda!!!

It's been the same throught out history. The UK is the last outpost of the West of Europe. Anyone fleeing stops here cos the next step is too big.

in reality it is not in their interests to police the France/UK border effectively
Yes it is in their interests; criminals use the route, criminals create issues by running the boats, and belief in the ability to cross leads to more migrants crossing France with the additional support and issues that entails for the French. Individual border guards might not perceive the wider picture (or might be paid to turn to the side), but it suits the French government nationally and locally to stop this. Sometimes it is used as a political pawn and the accountability for how the money is spent could be argued, but if the French could easily stop it then they would.

@Wackaday

I think that the UK has a responsibility to do their fair share in helping asylum seekers who have come from desperate situations. Obviously no one wants people to risk their lives crossing seas in difficult conditions. I am quite sure that France could do more to prevent it, but it is not in their interests to do so and their commitment to do this will never be there.

Yes! And that applies to every country back up the line @MRex

France, Italy, all across mainlaind Europe.

The UK has the geographic disadvanatages of being an island and the furthest you can go West! So it becomes more our problem than not at some point.

The idea that we could process asylum in Rwanda or similar. How do you think we would get the refugees there. We cant even manage to deport the ones that have been refused . The Human Rights people would be apoplectic.

France is a safe country..but they don't fancy the economic cost of hosting thousands of extra people,.so cast a blind eye while pocketing a tidy sum.

Most of these have paid a small fortune to people traffickers. Tackling those profiteering from others who can barely afford to pay for such a risky and dangerous transportation would be more to the point.
I understood the UK pays the French millions to do this...but of course the French don't want the refugees, which I assume is why they're taking the money and doing sod all with it.

@ChippyChipper

However, I also feel that it is simplistic to blame France for "allowing" asylum seekers to reach the UK by boat, when in reality it is not in their interests to police the France/UK border effectively.

They are coming from France. France allowed them into entry into their country as they elected to have no borders. They should be the ones dealing with them.

Presumably France hasn't allowed them entry if they haven't approached them for asylum? I assume that the asylum seekers trying to get to the UK are outside any formal systems?

I just wonder how we are expected to find accommodation for all these people. I understand that its hard to find homes for the Afghan refugees that came here legally recently. Not to mention the people who already live here that are homeless and not being put up in hotels I dont think.

@thereisonlyoneofme

Well we did see a lot a few years ago, and Germany opened their doors. There are thousands now on the border with Poland. . I do wonder why England is such a draw considering the vast majority of migrants appear to be muslim and we are not a muslim country (yet).

Our draw factors include

• Not as racist as some other places in Europe.
• English - one of the more commonly known/used second languages
• Almost zero enforcement of most laws - so easy to "disappear" and work illegally.
• Established communities.

As for the last two, a BBC investigation in 2008 estimated there were at least 800,000 people with no legal right to live in the UK living in Southall alone.

The asylum rules and the Geneva Convention are absolutely clear on that a person seeking asylum is expected to do so in the first safe country. Geography means that a little island off the north coast of Europe is not the first safe Geneva convention country from pretty much anywhere!

However, I do think anyone who is willing to travel across the Channel in a tiny little boat must be absolutely desperate! For that reason alone I think many are being trafficked/exploited.

Despite what many might think the UK is one of the least Xenophobic countries, at all levels. We really are the Wooly Liberals of Europe, right wing hatemongerers notwithstanding.

My over the road neighbour is a Muslim refugee. This is a small, rural town, with very few non white inhabitants. The most recent stats, 2020, show just 14 BAME inhabitants and 5 times as many Buddhists as Muslim, Sikh or Hindus. That's out of 5,500 inhabitants total, not the place you'd expect to be a favoured place for refugees. He aimed for us because he has relatives who were placed here and found the level of racism, religuous hatred etc to be far, far lower than anywhere else they had been.

So I can suggest that rural backwaters are attractive to refugees.

and that was 13 years ago !

@thereisonlyoneofme

The idea that we could process asylum in Rwanda or similar. How do you think we would get the refugees there. We cant even manage to deport the ones that have been refused . The Human Rights people would be apoplectic.

Presumably the same way as Denmark does it! Priti Patel didn't invent it - surprise me not!

@MRex

1) There are official routes for asylum seekers to be placed; they are supposed to register for asylum in the first safe country rather than continue travelling (a sort of queue jumping argument; you can argue how many spaces there should be but systems do exist to take in asylum seekers) 2) The boats are run by criminal organisations of people traffickers and the French border force are paid by the UK government to stop them operating 3) It's incredibly unsafe for individuals to cross with all the shipping and in unsafe overcrowded boats; lots of people have drowned trying to make the crossing, including children, that is why it should not be encouraged as a route.

Actually your first point isn't true, it's a myth. Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention nor EU law requires a refugee to claim asylum in one country rather than another. There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive. However one EU country can "require" another to take responsibility for an asylum claim if the claimant entered another EU country first. These are called "Dublin Rules". In practice though they benefitted the UK hugely compared to mainland EU countries when we were part of the EU.

@thereisonlyoneofme

Well we did see a lot a few years ago, and Germany opened their doors. There are thousands now on the border with Poland. . I do wonder why England is such a draw considering the vast majority of migrants appear to be muslim and we are not a muslim country (yet).

This post is a unnecessarily alarmist in tone.

I assume that UK is seen as a better destination for asylum speakers who speak English or already have relatives here.

As for the last two, a BBC investigation in 2008 estimated there were at least 800,000 people with no legal right to live in the UK living in Southall alone.

And yet, iirr, many people, here and elsewhere, objected to that as being part of the fearmongering and lies being told about refugees. I am sure there was a long and combative thread about it here - though it could have been on A N Other platform!

Where does Denmark process their migrants Hoarding ?

[quote Rebbecia1234]@Wackaday

I think that the UK has a responsibility to do their fair share in helping asylum seekers who have come from desperate situations. Obviously no one wants people to risk their lives crossing seas in difficult conditions. I am quite sure that France could do more to prevent it, but it is not in their interests to do so and their commitment to do this will never be there.[/quote]
I feel it is France's moral responsibility to commit to protecting the lives of these asylum seekers; it's reckless to allow what's happening to continue. There is enough intelligence available to monitor the waters and make sure these poor quality vessels carrying human lives (sometimes with whole families including young children) do not go across.

And yes I also agree that the UK must support France with this, hence the millions that are sent over is the right thing to do. How they are spending it and whether this being done effectively is down to the two governments to work together on but politicians just love pointing the finger at one another and create a media frenzy and sadly another nameless asylum seekers just slips away as another number lost.

OP I hope you can understand where I'm coming from and how this is everyone's responsibility to manage including France. Human life should not be about my border, your border. It's for everyone to protect and do the right thing and France should not turn a blind eye.

Actually your first point isn't true, it's a myth. Is it @linerforlife?

It's a bloody well settled onw as I was under the same impression.

www.amnesty.org.uk/truth-about-refugees

Ooh! I can see it 's a bastardisation fo the Dublin Regulations perhaps

But the governments new bill apaprently seeks to clarify all of that. It seems Article 31 is key... I'll have a proper read.

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9281/

@thereisonlyoneofme

Where does Denmark process their migrants Hoarding ?

According to the Amnesty piece I read about 10 minutres ago, the same place as Priti Patel is considering using, I think. Though Rwanda denies it.

www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/05/denmark-plans-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda-unconscionable-and-potentially-unlawful/

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

As for the last two, a BBC investigation in 2008 estimated there were at least 800,000 people with no legal right to live in the UK living in Southall alone.

And yet, iirr, many people, here and elsewhere, objected to that as being part of the fearmongering and lies being told about refugees. I am sure there was a long and combative thread about it here - though it could have been on A N Other platform!

Any investigation into illegal immigration is going to have a margin for error for very obvious reasons. We are, as a nation, exceptionally tolerant of illegal working in the sense that we do very very little by way of enforcement. I am not making a value judgement about that - and it's certainly not intended to be "lies" or "fearmongering". This is the problem with these issues, sooner or later someone gets called a racist or a xenophobe and then any reasoned debate is over.

@Wackaday Yes I do very much agree that helping asylum seekers is certainly an issue for both UK and France to be involved with.