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?

well it would have to be capped

If you cap it then there’s still a market for traffickers and international law would mean channel crossings are viable. Unless you exit that law somehow

As for finding a ‘problem for every solution’ if you end up with overwhelmed centres plus trafficking it’s not really a solution

People thought the last gov was the reason why we didn’t have processing centres in France, yet Starmer has not floated this idea and his smash the gangs is even worse for viability

You have wrongly assumed that I read the Daily Mail solely because I referred to the boats instead of naming the occupants of said boats.
Don't you think there's more to be concerned about than that?
This is a mature discussion and you choose to nitpick on on me calling them "the boats" I suggest you move on.

So the "dead towns" which get less funding anyway, then have to support all of the asylum seekers so that Lindon can spend its money on its more desirable residents? Because the "dead towns" are tucked snyway, so why not make them worse?
If you look at Middlesbrough you will find that this is already happening.

There will always be traffickers, there will always be people living under the radar due to overstaying etc this has always happened and happens everywhere not just in the UK, I'm looking at this in a purely humanitarian way, people are going to take this journey regardless of what you or I think of it and my concern is that they are treated with the dignity that we would like to receive ourselves if we were in that position. Just out of curiosity what do you think should be happening to lessen the problem? I say lessen as it will never be eradicated completely

Honestly I don’t think anything other than say the Australian way or basically open arms will stop it or cut it down drastically.

You’ve either got to come down extremely hard. Enter with a visa or else you will be refused, placed in a random holding island till deportation / boats shot at yada yada or hello welcome good day come in which will end up with you over run.

They seem to be the only place that actually got a hold on it and are an island.

There’s quite a few things that come up on these threads eg ID cards, faster processing, French processing, safe routes alone, resolving world issues, Dublin agreement etc that are not really viable and that’s before you get to smash the gangs which Labour have actually pledged - also not viable

If I were to focus on two things it would be Aus success or the EU upcoming Pact. Maybe the next GE can float those two options as I think either of those are closer to possible than the above

A lot of your posts have focused on poorer towns, which is a reasonable point but I don't think that we should be giving the government an easy out via the migrant issue. What do the government plan to do to about these forgotten towns - irrespective of the migrant issue would be my question.

It is certainly a valid question and I 100% agree that the government should shirk their responsibilities but sadly, since the coalition government under Cameron and Clegg (where did he disappear to?) decided to axe the 9 Regional Development Agencies, it has been left to the Local Enterprise Partnerships who were not adequately funded enough to make a massive difference.
Public, private and third parties do play their part in resourcing and developing though.
The government should try to rescue failing towns and that means employment. Surely the government would think that making a poorer town even less desirable in favour of saving London is the right way forward and the idea of making the north a dumping ground for 1000's of migrants is frankly depressing.

Not shirk!

MissMeMiss · 30/09/2024 23:25

HelenHen · 30/09/2024 22:29
The only way to stop people risking their lives in the channel is by providing a safe route to asylum. But nobody wants to talk about that 🙄
For absolutely everyone who wants to come?

Yes. Everyone has the right to claim asylum. If there were a proper, safe processing system in place, sufficiently staffed, those with a genuine claim for refugee status would be given asylum and those without, economic migrants, for example, would be rejected and returned to their countries of origin.

Though personally I see nothing wrong with people wanting to improve their lives economically by working hard. The UK is desperately short of workers and young families. What it lacks is the infrastructure to support them. That’s solely down to lack of investment in said infrastructure for the past 14 years.

If you’re going to judge other people for believing what they read in the DM, then you really do need to make sure what you’re saying is correct. I don’t know where you’ve got this information from, but it’s just plain wrong.

If someone has bypassed immigration control and entered the UK, then they have entered illegally. It doesn’t matter why they’ve come here, or when they hand themselves in. They have still entered illegally and are known as illegal entrants. That is an offence under immigration laws and is punishable by a fine and/or custodial sentence. I posted the link to the .gov website upthread, setting out exactly what laws have been broken. We don’t prosecute them because it’s recognised that someone seeking asylum doesn’t have many options when travelling to a different country to make a claim.

If they don’t claim asylum, they are still known as illegal entrants. Their status doesn’t change. The media might refer to them as illegal immigrants but in reality, where the categories you put people into actually matter, that term isn’t used. If someone then claims asylum, they become an asylum seeker. If they’re granted, they become a refugee. If they’re refused, and any subsequent appeals are also refused, they become a failed asylum seeker.

The boats are really a red herring when the overwhelming majority of migration to the UK is legal. There is no political will to curtail it. Politicians are not representing their people, they couldn't care less and are only interesting in enriching themselves.

Under international law you are allowed to enter illegally to claim asylum, you cannot be prosecuted. They aren't prosecuted for that reason. From the Refugee Convention:

The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

This is modified by R v Uxbridge Magistrates Court which provides the same protection to asylum seekers passing through safe countries.

Well I think they're doing it for the economy. We do actually need immigrants. It's not simply a case of saying "the people" don't want immigration and the government are only allowing people in for their own benefit. For me, immigration is not an issue I'm concerned about. I'm not saying there aren't any issues related to it, but it's not in the top ten things I worry about. I know others feel differently and I absolutely agree that their concerns should be addressed, However, some of their concerns are based on misinformation. I see the benefits of immigration, such as the fact the NHS would collapse without immigrant workers.
This article is interesting because it dispels some of the myths such as immigrants are more likely to commit crimes and immigrants are a drain on the NHS. Neither of these are true: UK immigration: why public opinion is at odds with reality (ft.com)

Australia still has illegal immigrants, probably mostly visa over stayers which is our problem aswell, but this is where it gets complicated as those truly illegal immigrants are not taking our Dr appointments or school places or benefits as they by their very status are under the radar so can't access those things without flagging themselves up, legal immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees and illegal immigrants are all very different and the clumping them all together as one problem is never going to make the situation better for anyone

Given I haven’t ‘clumped them all together’ your post isn’t making much sense nor is it relevant to trafficking.

What I posted was there are two more viable options and the rest that keeps coming up on these threads are pretty much not, as listed below.

I didn't say you personally but that is how the media and the right wing talk about it so people in general,( not you personally for clarification) think the number of people coming via traffickers is much larger than it actually is. I still think that safe routes for all is the best way even though it's not perfect, in my opinion it's the most humane

Granted it does sound good I just don’t think it’s possible due to demand

It’s why the EU and Labour will avoid proposing it

Yeah, I know. That’s why I explained that we don’t prosecute them, because we are signatories to the 1951 Convention and recognise that they often have no options but to enter a country illegally in order to claim asylum and that it wouldn’t be fair to penalise them for it…. What’s your point?

Or are you suggesting that it’s not an offence under immigration law because we handle it administratively and don’t prosecute? Because that’s definitely not the case.

It is impossible to "stop the boats". The best way to reduce their quantity is through foreign policy that helps mitigate climate change, poverty and war, so that people from other countries will want to stay and live there instead of risking their lives to come to this cold but wealthier and safer island. Unfortunately that is not happening. All the contrary, the UK is, for example, happily selling weapons to countries that are currently busy creating a lot of refugees.

Nobody chooses to become an illegal migrant or asylum seeker for fun. People who resort to boat crossings have already been through hardships that are unimaginable to the average Westerner. There is not much that UK politicians can do inside the UK to scare them, unless perhaps we're OK with transforming the UK into a hellish nightmare on Earth for everyone.

Not sure that relying on cheap labour from abroad is the answer not when we have British people who could do the low paid jobs, and saying that immigrants do the jobs that we don't want to isn't the answer either. We need to look at why that is. It's ridiculous that if someone who works 16 hours a week and gets benefit tops up is then worse off if they increase their hours.

We also need to change how we look at low paid work. There was a thread on here recently where a woman's husband had been made redundant but refused to take any job. So she was looking for a second job to pay the bills while he wanted to wait until the right job came along. People were telling her to make sure she was claiming all the benefits she could which is ridiculous.

why can't we stop/pause the boats?

I'm guessing it's because the French are only too glad to see the back of them as they depart French soil.

I was chatting to a young man at work who was doing community payback. He told me he was claiming UC and that doing the math he’d only be about £40 a week better off than doing a full time job on min wage. Lived in a council flat and full rent/ ct is paid. It doesn’t sound very appealing to work to effectively make yourself better off by a £1 an hour. You either need to work more hours as your net gain is greater or earn a better hourly rate.

I’m really not sure what the answer is I think if you work full time you should be substantially better off than someone who is unemployed otherwise there is little financial incentive. Personally I’d be embarrassed not to work unless I was too ill or disabled ( I know lots of disabled people work but for others it’s too difficult or employers are unwilling to make reasonable adjustments). I don’t know how you I still a work ethic into people though.

I don’t know how you insill a work ethic into people though.

You make work pay.

Not by ripping away or damaging a safety net needed by the poorest or the vulnerable, but by paying a fair wage for work. If you are working 40 hours a week doing something vital for society then you should be paid a wage someone can thrive on.

But this is the whole reason immigration levels are the way they are.

If they weren't, companies would have actually had to make their wages attractive and competitive.

Work ethic and fair pay, that's a whole new conversation......