To think people who want "safe routes to migration" into the UK are hopelessly naive

[ForestGoblin]

We could spend every penny of public money on bringing refugees to the UK in comfy and safe boats and planes. We could make it mandatory for every home to provide accommodation and food. We could ban healthcare for anyone except refugees.

And there would still be thousands and thousands of boat crossings every year and millions more people languishing in bad situations and trying to figure out how to get here or elsewhere in northern Europe.

It's a crap situation. Life is bad. I feel dreadful for them.

But "safe routes" is a load of glib nonsense that can't work.

It's the UN OHCHR if you're referring to the UN body who work to promote human rights, or the UN HCR if you're on about the body who work to support refugees specifically.

In either case leaving them wouldn't make any material difference with regard to the UKs ability to contraviene them as neither body has the authority or capacity to create or implement laws on those matters. That's up to the individual countries to do so. Even the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights isn't a law, although to withdraw from that would make the UK a complete pariah.

I assume what you want is to tear up the relevant legislation on human rights that apply to the UK, but I'm at a loss as to why you would want to remove something that works to ensure you are treated with dignity, freedom, and equality, and that your rights to life, education, fair treatment, and freedom of expression are safeguarded, just so your government can "push back" a few people you consider to he undesirable?

Actually, thinking about it I guess you're exactly the type of person the OHCHR and subsequent UK laws were set up to protect people from.

@DuncinToffee "You are not disputing the fact that the majority of asylum claims are successful?"

In this country yes, because we set a low bar. Some 'asylum seekers' have had their claims rejected in other countries.

In March 2022, aspiring Royal Marine, 18-year-old Thomas Roberts was stabbed to death in an unprovoked attack in Bournemouth. The killer was Afghan national Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai, an asylum seeker who entered the UK illegally by ferry in late 2019, lied about his age in order to stay here, who had already murdered people in other countries and who was rejected for asylum elsewhere in Europe (by the more sensible country of Norway). This was a shocking crime which underlined the deep failures of enforcement that are now putting innocent Brits at real risk.

You're missing the point. I'm not disagreeing we are attractive due to lack of enforcement, but that has nothing to do with ID cards, it's because of Troy austerity and their idealogical aversion to employing public servants. All ID cards would do is add a huge cost and inconvenience to the picture. You could clamp down on the actual problem of illegal working by having enough people employed on compliance and enforcement, without making everyone carry something to solve a "problem" that doesn't apply to 90+% of us.

You haven't thought this through properly, like most people who bang on about ID cards.

There is (perhaps) a difference between not coming to the aid of a boat and actively forcing it to turn around, and sink, then watch the people drown.

You also don't answer the very real possibility that France will not accept back migrants... then what?

What you appear to suggest is that a few deaths etc will mean migrants wont get in the boats in the first place & thats a price worth paying.

@Alexandra2001 "You also don't answer the very real possibility that France will not accept back migrants... then what?"

When did they ever take back any channel migrants?

It is claimed, by the French, that intercepting migrant boats in the Channel to take their passengers back to France would endanger lives. ( ! ) But they have no problem in intercepting boats in French waters and towing them to the UK side. How many of these have sunk ??

Up to Dec according to Italian figure published in Italy, French police have been sending back to Italy about 80 illegal migrants a day who they’ve caught crossing the frontier at and around Ventimiglia on the Riviera – either by train, car or bus, or else on foot across the mountains. That’s nearly 30,000 migrants in total this year sent back to Italy by the French.

Britain, meanwhile, has allowed in around 120 migrants a day last year who set off from Pas de Calais in small boats destined for Kent – many of whom were picked up halfway across the Channel by Border Force or RNLA vessels.

@Alexandra2001 "There is (perhaps) a difference between not coming to the aid of a boat and actively forcing it to turn around, and sink, then watch the people drown."

As I said at 12.55 The French regularly tow boats into our waters, how many have sunk?

I'd have thought its pretty obvious, maybe not... in the 1st case, the people on the boat are willing & able to assist, being towed back would meet very strong resistance, the most obvious one would be to sink the boat, so would you rescue or let drown?

(All i could see was an Express article that said a french warship escorted migrant boats to UK waters)

FWIW, i think turning back boats might work but they'd be a cost and that would mean confrontation with France and drownings... if your happy with that, then fine, say so.

@Alexandra2001 'being towed back would meet very strong resistance, the most obvious one would be to sink the boat, so would you rescue or let drown?'

If people are stupid enough to try to sink their own boat, in one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, then I have absolutely no sympathy for them.

Wow, @MNHQ removing a post that asked a previous poster why they would want to remove themselves from human rights legislation just to be able to "push back" a few people they found undesirable as it "breaches talk guidelines". Yet they will let post after post after post calling for the removal of human rights and mistreatment of vulnerable people to stand.

Says a lot about the people running this site really.

Would love to know which part of my post breached the guidelines exactly?

@Thebestwaytoscareatory "Yet they will let post after post after post calling for the removal of human rights and mistreatment of vulnerable people to stand."

No-one has said that.

You need to report this post to draw your question to MN's attention.

Oh, right. Let's stop fire and ambulance services from going out to help people who get into trouble through driving cars carelessly, having inadequate fire safety precautions, not taking their medication, drinking too much, eating too much, not taking enough exercise, failing to have vaccinations so as to avoid infections, going into labour after getting pregnant accidentally? We should probably abandon coastal rescue almost entirely. That's the logical consequence of this argument.

And, of course, what are you going to do about the children in those boats who didn't accept any risk of drowning?

I, personally, am not going to do anything about those children.

Why is it my problem?

Why not ask the people who expose those children to danger?
Why not ask the traffickers who put 50 people in dinghy designed for 20?
Why not ask the French police who allow these hazardous journeys from their own shores?

Dropping it in my lap makes your post ridiculous.

How close is the UK to France?
How close is Australia to its nearest neighbour?

Does that difference mean that the approach used by one might not work for the other?

How can Rwanda be a deterrent if it as nice a country as the Home Secretary says?

I work with refugees in the hotels and after they get temporary leave to remain.
some were spooked by the initial Rwanda idea and disappeared overnight and I heard they had gone to other countries including Canada. Many spent 1-2 years sleeping rough aged 14-16 across Europe, but once in the U.K. treated equally to a British child till 18 and very well cared for in comparison to EU. Once they have leave to remain they can also get a travel document. I know several who have gone on extended holidays to countries neighbouring their own, even getting married all while getting UC. Whilst the U.K. gives a lot of help with the basics the situation is still fairly bleak and family promises that they will make and pay back money to family at home (for example by becoming a doctor) is impossible leading to massive dissatisfaction and depression.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the young men but I do think the Rwanda idea will work. Sone of them came here on just the idea of England nor really knowing what it is, seeing photos of their friends wearing JD sports clothes but life here is hard for them with huge language difficulties and it’s hard to gain skills. Those I have spoken to think there should be something to stop others like them making the same mistake and risking lives in doing so.

The main issue is that the Channel at its narrowest, where most small boats cross, is too narrow to have any international water between the UK and France, being only 21 miles. There's 12 miles of coastal water where the authorities can intervene to repel, but there's a 3 mile overlap in the channel. You will notice that the small boats are not crossing from Brittany to Cornwall where there's 100 miles of (often quite choppy) international water to navigate.

Have I understood correctly that you are happy with economic migration, but not asylum seekers fleeing persecution?

I don't like the Rwanda plan but I think it will work. The people paying for passage will quickly get much less keen on paying for small boat crossings if the next 100 interceptions are bussed to Heathrow and off to Rwanda in 36 hours.

Presumably if the option of arriving on for instance a tourist visa and then claiming asylum is removed, people will simply arrive on the tourist visa, stay and not claim asylum.

Is that a sensible solution?

I am sure I was told that Brexit would mean we could take control of our borders? Are you telling me that, that has not happened?

Couldn't they build a wall?

Presumably you apply the same argument to people who injure themselves through drink or drugs?
What about sports? I mean why should we treat the injuries that inevitably occur in boxing?