Stopping the boats.

[Scenicgirl]

Honest question.
When Rishi Sunak announced the promise to tackle Channel migrant crossings as one of his five key pledges at the beginning of 2023, and subsequently failed and Keir Starmer appearing not to be concerned about the numbers arriving daily, when other EU countries have taken a much sterner stance sending a clear message, why can't we stop/pause the boats?

If I could ...

Carers and cleaners £30k per annum - but the jobs go to people born here (brown,black,white and any other colour I've left off)

Only high skilled immigration - doctors etc

Leave the rest of the world to it's problems therefore, don't even be responsible for the displaced people

I think most who come on boats are intercepted and guided to our shores, or they arrive and are met when their boat arrives. Very few actually get here on boats undetected. But I think processing in France is a good idea, but as you say, we have to find a way of making sure they don’t then try to come here under different names/stories.

@Livelovebehappy how many applications do you think there would be in France?

But what do you set the limit at. 10,000 a year? 40,000? 100,000?

Where do they live because they are not coming here with jobs lined up or on visas with a family member sponsoring them.

Once you’ve hit that limit what do you do with the new applicants? Say come back next year? Or is anyone in any country we decide is a war torn or homophobic etc just approved and there is no cap?

And then where do they work even because we already have a million barber shops and take aways and car washes and nail salons and yes that sounds a way. But it’s where a lot end up working on and off the books while being processed.

Sure some will go into working in care homes but unless their English is actually really good verbally that’s not actually good for the people in the homes.

We should want better jobs or better paying jobs for everyone. It shouldn’t be oh well let them in they can clean the toilets nobody wants to do. Living 10 to a room for a slum landlord either. That’s not humane even if maybe it’s safer than their homelands.

In my view a two-pronged approach is needed:

1. A safe and legal capped system through which people can apply for asylum without having to make dangerous journeys. The current approach is encouraging people smuggling and isn’t fair, as people with the resources to travel across continents often aren’t those most in need.
2. A tough approach to those continuing to cross by boat. This will require some on the left to accept that a significant number of those arriving are economic migrants rather than refugees. I have nothing against them personally, but no country can accommodate unlimited numbers arriving in an uncontrolled way.

Clearly there are people on the right who are racist and against any immigration. However, there are also a good number on the left (groups like Care4Calais) which are against any form of immigration control and have opposed measures to stop crossings and deport people not entitled to remain.

They effectively want open borders, which is equally as bad a policy as those advocating a stop to immigration, as it would be chaotic and lead to a complete loss of public confidence.

Providing a safe route for asylum? How do we absorb half the people in Sudan, Afghanistan, Syria Iran and every other country that has issues!

The only way if actually stopped the boats is via a combination of attacking the actual gangs at source, and introducing safe legal route for people to apply for asylum before they actually get here.

No one wants to come here via a death trap small boat.

People who are desperate are gong to keep doing it unless there’s another way.

Yep! An asylum system allowing people to claim asylum before arrival would immediately stop the need for the boats - everyone seeking asylum could do it from a base in northern France. If the Home Office then processed efficiently, legitimate routes could be opened up for those whose application is approved. It requires a level of investment and willpower that goes beyond meaningless slogans.

We don’t, other European countries take far more refugees than we do. Oh and we could stop getting involved in conflicts that result in hundreds of thousands of displaced civilians seeking asylum.

Oh I 100% we need to keep our bleeding noses out of other countries business.

It sounds almost possible but the reality is it’s not, see pp

It wouldn’t stop the boats alone as a good number of those crossing have no chance of being granted asylum, and they know that.

I do agree there should be legal routes, but that needs to be alongside tough measures to stop the crossings.

Syria takes the bulk of African and ME refugees, we take no where near any other countries numbers.

Do you not think more would come of it was safer though.

There are strict criteria for asylum. War us actually a bit different

But at that point you’re better placed to tackle the boats because it would then be a fair assumption that they are not legitimate asylum seekers. At the moment we have no way of knowing who on the boats is and who isn’t until their applications are processed in a few years’. You could likely then be more robust in deporting those who arrive that way on the basis they can and should apply from the processing centre in France (or whatever) and the fact they wouldn’t suggests they’re not a legitimate asylum seeker.

Ok again how many applications in France?

I agree it’s a pipe dream. It shouldn’t be, but it is.

What do you mean “how many”? At the moment anyone who wants to seek asylum needs to be here to make their application, hence the boats. If every application was done from a safe, clean, functioning processing center then in theory there would be no need for the boats, and any boats would be used by people who aren’t genuinely seeking asylum, so the response can be more robust than it otherwise would be.

Because there is no legal international way to stop people who claim are poor but have money to pay the boat traffickers.

How are you going to stop them, like physically ?

The criterion for asylum is personal persecution. Coming from a war torn country is technically a different route.

Also one cannot work ‘on the books’ whilst an asylum claim is being processed. A big part of the problem is the staff cutbacks by the previous government, both in numbers and downgrading of the assessment jobs. This has resulted in a huge backlash and bad decisions as evidenced by high success rates upon appeal - nearly 50% annually in some regions recently.

I’m asking those keen on French processing how many applications they envisage and how overwhelmed that centre would be because currently there is a barrier to entry

Ie an unsafe crossing and the high cost is a barrier

How would a centre deal with the increase in applications?

I meant on the books once approved and off while awaiting. It was poorly worded.