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?

@Fairylights25

They do deport, but it takes ages with a long spiral process. We should really become much more efficiently . A two week window - fixed process - change the law so it’s easier to do. Anyone refusing ID is automatically deported immediately due to security concerns. Turn around is super fast and non contentious. The starting point is deportation not resettlement. Anyone with a criminal record automatically deported. Anyone caught smuggling human beings gets life in prison no ifs or buts. Until we get tough on this we will continue to see the trade of people and exploitation drag on for decades. Put me in charge I’d have this done in 12 months or less.

We have a Conservative Government with a big majority. Why the hell aren't they doing this? How does it help anyone to have potentially hundreds of thousands entering the country each year that will cost taxpayers millions, use up vital housing when there is already a housing crisis, already stretched NHS resources and increase threat of crime and terrorism. I don't understand why the Government isn't clamping down. I guess it doesn't really affect the rich very much so they don't care.

How can anyone other than France physically stop people leaving their shores in unseaworthy boats to sail across one of the world's most dangerous shipping lanes?

@Moonmelodies how can they though? What solutions are available to them? If the migrants want to cross to get to the UK, france can’t physically restrain them. They’ll cross eventually even if it’s not via boat.

@MLMshouldbeillegal- But international law/convention is that the asylum seekers should seek asylum in the FIRST SAFE country they get to. France is safe. Why are they not claiming asylum in France? Or for those who arrive overland in France, in any of the other number of countries they pass through first? (yes I know there are all sorts of reasons why people want to get to the UK because of family links and language, but the law doesn't really take account of that)

That is not the case. Have a read of this -
fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-safe-country/

The Dublin rules apply to the EU only. Under those rules, they must apply for asylum in the first EU country they are registered in. However, if they leave the EU, that doesn't apply.

If the migrants want to cross to get to the UK, france can’t physically restrain them

Of course they can restrain them! They could bloody deport them if they are illegal immigrants for one. They could house them properly point two. They could monitor the beaches properly as they are supposed to do point three. They could imprison smugglers I could go on and on.

France contained this situation really rather well for years up until six months ago, and suddenly Macron decided he would rather make things difficult for the brits in his words to show that brexit failed. Well sending boat loads of immigrant is only going to plunge relations into further decline, but I guess Zemmour can succeed perhaps where Macron has failed?

That is the way it is looking to me. France is in terminal decline of epic proportions, someone has to stop the rot.

Also bear in mind coming to the UK is now way more attractive - no longer an EU member so the Dublin agreement is no longer valid in the UK. So once the migrants are here, they are here to stay.
Wondering why the Remain campaign didn’t mention this, seeing as a huge amount of people voted Leave because they thought it would allow us to close our borders and prevent the EU forcing us to take a quota of migrants!

The UK can make its own laws now, so if the government wants to get very tough on immigration (or anything else) It now can, and they do seem very committed to doing so. So from that point of view brexit is a good thing, as now we can hold our own government accountable.

Not to say we are going to become like Saudi, but we can definitely do much more to improve the situation significantly.

@Fairylights25

The UK can make its own laws now, so if the government wants to get very tough on immigration (or anything else) It now can, and they do seem very committed to doing so. So from that point of view brexit is a good thing, as now we can hold our own government accountable.

Not to say we are going to become like Saudi, but we can definitely do much more to improve the situation significantly.

I’m intrigued what you think we can do?

@Fairylights25

They do deport, but it takes ages with a long spiral process. We should really become much more efficiently . A two week window - fixed process - change the law so it’s easier to do. Anyone refusing ID is automatically deported immediately due to security concerns. Turn around is super fast and non contentious. The starting point is deportation not resettlement. Anyone with a criminal record automatically deported. Anyone caught smuggling human beings gets life in prison no ifs or buts. Until we get tough on this we will continue to see the trade of people and exploitation drag on for decades. Put me in charge I’d have this done in 12 months or less.

Where are they meant to depart to? They have no way of knowing where the people have come from, nor how old they are.

@Fairylights25 deport them to where? These people don’t just travel with paperwork lol and they certainly aren’t going to tell you where they travelled from.
Also most smugglers are actually British?
And why can’t UK house asylum seekers properly too? Why does the blame fall back on France everytime?

France contained this situation really rather well for years up until six months ago, and suddenly Macron decided he would rather make things difficult for the brits in his words to show that brexit failed

There have been problems around Calais and “leakage” across the Channel by way of stowing away in lorries/car trailers/for years… the fashion for boats/dinghies is relatively recent and may well be down to the fact that the French have been making getting into the tunnel/tunnel infra-structure harder….

Pretty much every time you see a crowd of intercepted migrants interviewed on French TV a sizable proportion speak English and make the point that their intended destination is the UK..always the UK…they are not interested in putting down routes in accommodation in France.

The French POV is that they are doing what they can, with the resources they have but they do wish the UK would make efforts to reduce the “pull”…

Meanwhile from late last night:

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/15/france-uk-migrant-crisis-priti-patel

A dental check can immediately offer age range and is already used - and unless the migrant is willing to offer ID and home country information then they will be immediately be deported back to France first choice, or Libya as a second choice. We need to get much tougher.

There is a wild difference between leakage, and thousands of boats launching from France, a big difference.

@Fairylights25

A dental check can immediately offer age range and is already used - and unless the migrant is willing to offer ID and home country information then they will be immediately be deported back to France first choice, or Libya as a second choice. We need to get much tougher.

And why on earth would France accept them? Dublin rules no longer apply to the UK...

I suspect Libya may not be terribly cooperative either.

Ok so say you could deport them. How would you define an ‘illegal immigrant’ as you call them?
And even if you could define such term, how would you prove they’re ‘illegal immigrant’ as opposed to asylum seeker?
Lastly, how would you find out their country of origin or which EU country they originally arrived in to send them back to?
Countries blaming each other is never going to work. The UK also needs to take accountability for migrants.

Once they are here they do not get deported, legal challenges draw the process out for years. Every time the Government try to do something, there is an outcry that its illegal, inhumane, against human rights.
Unless something is done, like Australia, things will not change.
They made a controversial decision and it seems to have worked.
Many lives could be saved in the future if we made a hard decision.
We cant absorb thousands of people every year who need support and housing.
Also, Im going to get flamed for this, the man who set off the bomb in Liverpool is reportedly a failed asylum seeker. How many other
people like this are flooding into the country undetected ?

Not sure why the UK should be more responsible for sending boats out to rescue migrants in unseaworthy vessels than France.

France are in a better position to prevent the vessels launching - they can interfere with the process on land as well as being able to use their ships to intercept them in the water.

France are the problem here - (understandably) they don't want the illegal migrants on their turf, they are happy for them to go to sea because it removes the problem from their shores.

The migrants who arrive on Britain's shores or have to be rescued by our ships, who don't have a legal right to be here, should certainly be given shelter and security by us. We've still got overseas territories like South Georgia or Inaccessible Island, the migrants could be given free passage to those locations and be given the basics for growing their own food and making their own shelter. They'd be free from whatever persecution they were fleeing, those places are so remote nobody would bother going after them there.

@Fairylights25

A dental check can immediately offer age range and is already used - and unless the migrant is willing to offer ID and home country information then they will be immediately be deported back to France first choice, or Libya as a second choice. We need to get much tougher.

France won't take them, nor Libya - what are you going to do about that? You are not thinking this through at all.

@Fairylights25

The UK can make its own laws now, so if the government wants to get very tough on immigration (or anything else) It now can, and they do seem very committed to doing so. So from that point of view brexit is a good thing, as now we can hold our own government accountable.

Not to say we are going to become like Saudi, but we can definitely do much more to improve the situation significantly.

Yes, the Government is so committed to doing so that the new Borders Bill is progressing at snail's pace through Parliament, yet when it suits them they can bring in new (Covid-related bills) in the space of a week or so. Surely this is now an emergency situation and should be dealt with with utmost urgency for the safety and benefit of both the migrants and the UK population. It's almost like the Government don't want to stop this...

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.

If a UK border force employee finds an asylum seeker on a beach they they are in Britain and our responsibility.

If they are in France, then France is responsible for them.

Wondering why the Remain campaign didn’t mention this, seeing as a huge amount of people voted Leave because they thought it would allow us to close our borders and prevent the EU forcing us to take a quota of migrants!

Because they earned a fortune and said anything remainers said was 'project fear'.

And why on earth would France accept them? Dublin rules no longer apply to the UK...

Exactly - France wouldn't take them back when we were in the EU and they were legally obliged to, they aren't going to now.

I suspect Libya may not be terribly cooperative either.
Indeed that idea was just bonkers

It's all a bit pathetic isn't it. Britain bungs the French a few quid. The EU throws a few bob at Greece and Turkey. Blah blah as Greta says. Trouble is Europe and USA have no interest in seeing developing countries actually improve their living standards. They just want raw materials and cheap labour. Oh and war , lots of war. Most refugees live in countries adjacent to their place of origin. Countries which , through some oversight, Britain and the USA have not bombed back to the Stone Age. States like Jordan , Egypt and Iran host a lot of refugees. After the Berlin Wall came down there was lots of talk about developing North Africa - which is ideal for solar power. But talk is cheap. To actually accomplish anything you'd have to take on the 1%.

@HarrietsChariot

France are in a better position to prevent the vessels launching - they can interfere with the process on land as well as being able to use their ships to intercept them in the water.

If anyone tries to intercept them they sink their own boats so they have to be rescued. There is no practical way for any vessels to be turned back.

France did offer to do exactly this in the past, as long as the uk shares the cost, but that was refused.

• Once they are here they do not get deported, legal challenges draw the process out for years. Every time the Government try to do something, there is an outcry that its illegal, inhumane, against human rights. Unless something is done, like Australia, things will not change. They made a controversial decision and it seems to have worked. Many lives could be saved in the future if we made a hard decision. We cant absorb thousands of people every year who need support and housing. Also, Im going to get flamed for this, the man who set off the bomb in Liverpool is reportedly a failed asylum seeker. How many other people like this are flooding into the country undetected ?*

This

While most people are happy to accept this situation the government will not do much because they have not pressure. Also, there is a trend to shame the people who question the consequences of this situation.