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?

It's not quite like that though. 70% of people arriving on 'small boats' have their asylum request granted; of the remaining 30% that get refused a third are granted asylum on appeal. So, the large majority of those arriving across the channel are, in fact, genuine asylum seekers.

If you wanted to come here to work illegally in the shadow cash economy it is much easier to get a tourist or student visa then just not go home when your visa has expired, than it is to risk your life on a flimsy dinghy on the English Channel.

Another thing to bear in mind about those 'small boat' arrivals is that they will have been told that they are buying, from the traffickers, a legitimate entry into the UK, with proper papers, ferry tickets and work arranged for them. At the point they board the 'small boat' they are helpless to do anything else.

Things I don't understand:

• how would legal routes really help? These people are undocumented as they don't want us to know who they are. If they were all doctors/dentists/insert any skilled worker then they would be keen to show this and get their claim processed quickly. Let's face it they are undocumented, unskilled economic migrants who are mainly male (with cultural norms very different to our own). They would not qualify under a 'legal' route so they will just keep coming anyway.

• how exactly do the Home Office process people who have no documentation and probably will not say who they are or will lie? I honestly wonder how this works? I realise it's slow but I'm not surprised.

• what do we know actually about how many speak English, have family here? We are led to believe this is the main reason however councils spend £££ on English lessons and frequently when interviewed they can't speak English (unless the MSM are choosing those who can't speak English). I'd like to see the stats.

• why are they housed and fed when English people, some who fought in the war are left with sub standard housing, struggling to live and eat?

What would I do? Setup large camps in warehouses or static caravans with basic food, shared toilets and showers. I would they are the bottom of the list for housing, organise working groups do get them out cleaning streets, graffiti etc. in fact make it uncomfortable.

I really wish people would stop saying stop the boats, we are talking about people here.
By referencing "boats" all the time it enables certain sections of society and The Press to dehumanise the PEOPLE who are on those boats and makes it easier to accept it when they drown or face danger of abuse etc from Traffickers.
I am not someone who wants to allow all and sundry in The Uk with no checks or safeguards but its the Traffickers we should be targetting and/or talking about rather than the people making the journey across The Channel

Because that is the emphasis of reporting and they are the most likely to die.
33 on a boat 2 women, 1 child and 30 men.
The report will say 18 people died including 2 women and a young child.
The vast majority of the boat are still men.

It seems Labour want people to do this the trouble they’ll have is smash the gangs won’t work

Because we have 7,723 miles of coastline and not enough money to guard it. Next question?

Justice4Friend , Nimby! Thanks, they're already here!

What made you so full of hate and spite?

Not all these people are the same. You are treating them like one homogenous group who should be punished. There may be some genuine asylum seekers who have already been through hell and torture. Why treat them like animals?

You were born in the UK by luck. You are not special or more deserving of anything.

And if you treat people badly, they behave badly. So be careful wishing for substandard treatment of these men you wish to punish.

People seem to have such an issue with the fact that more men come over on small boats. Does anyone not understand why men come over first? It's a treacherous journey, they don't don't even know if they'll be granted asylum so why would they drag women and children over until they're established? Often the families are waiting at a camp elsewhere until they're allowed to come. All this information is available online.

True. I’ve been reading about the situation in Germany.
Despite being in the EU they seem to be struggling with returning asylum seekers to the countries where they first entered the EU.
For some reason the Dublin agreement doesn’t seem to be working particularly well for them.

Yes that's a much better idea Process people before they actually get on a boat. Then the ones who are accepted get visa to come.
If you are declined or do not bother applying through the proper channels then it should be automatic decline to stay and immediately removed

This should have the side effect of being unprofitable for the smuggling gangs if NO ONE they smuggle is allowed to stay

Did you feel the same about British workers heading to Germany during the 70s and 80s?

Do you feel the same of people like me that came on an airplane?

These people are happy to work. They are mostly healthy young men with plenty of drive and intelligence. They are not coming for benefits or the NHS. They think that Britain is a land of tolerance, equality and opportunity. Their own countries offer no opportunities. That is why they come.
To be honest if they knew what Britain was really like they would probably go elsewhere rather than risk illegal inhumane incarceration in a detention centre with no ability to work

@RamblingAround nothing to do with being born in the UK by luck. When our country has been under threat British people stayed to fight not flee. The only reason we are lucky is because of the sacrifices from other people in the past. Instead of paying billions to have everyone here we should help them overthrow whatever regime they are running from so they can live safely in their own countries. We are doing it with Ukraine so we could do it elsewhere.

The only way to stop unwanted immigration is to improve conditions in the countries they are leaving. If people have a reasonable life at home with the chance to live in a peaceful society with freedom to work, get educated, bring up a family and have a chance to improve their lot, they will not take these kind of risks to go elsewhere.

How much would that take?
Billions already flows and climate pressure will act as another push

I doubt it’s possible. You could throw everything we had at it

There's nothing inherently better about British people. Britain has not been invaded or exploited. On the contrary Britain has invaded and or exploited many of the countries these asylum seekers are coming from. If we hadn't they probably wouldn't come. We're "lucky" because previous generations plundered and oppressed other countries and that legacy still remains

I agree that we should be doing much more to improve conditions elsewhere instead of focusing on the impossible task of stopping people coming here

Countries are the way they are because of the people that live in them. If these people won't stay and fight to make their country better, the way British ancestors did, then their country will never get better.

All that is going to happen is that the UK will turn into the same sort of shithole everyone else is running from. Because they bring over all the same issue and social problems that made their countries a living hell to begin with.

You think we could overthrow all the cruel dictatorships in the world right now? And all
the countries in civil war? Do you have any idea how many countries that would involve? With the best will and patriotism in the world, I can’t see the UK being able to do that somehow. Lovely though it would be. And it would cost a hell of a lot more than housing asylum seekers.

I would suggest that you and others read some firsthand accounts of asylum seekers and see what they are leaving behind and the journeys they endure.

Does it matter if they are economic migrants?
I welcome anyone to this country regardless of country of origin ect as long as they want to work, contribute to society and obey our laws - which is more than a lot of people born here actually do!
The situation is set up now that the people who come here who DO want to contribute are prevented from doing so and so end up working for cash or being exploited.

Probably not that much in monetary terms....if you think about it, living standards have improved rapidly in most countries around the world over the past 20 or 30 years. Many Asian countries are now getting close to Western standards of living and that is just because of peace and reasonable government, not because of aid from the west. It's only a minority of countries where people still live in extreme poverty.

Politically it is more difficult as it will require more control of powerful multinational companies which corrupt governments. It will need us to stop unfair trade restrictions that prevent countries adding value to their export crops. It will need us to stop interfering in democratically elected governments.

Most of the problems are the legacy of empire and I feel we should be taking a lot more responsibility

They're not arriving illegally. It's perfectly legal to turn up at a country and claim asylum. It's illegal to stay if their claim is rejected This is completely wrong.

Anyone who bypasses immigration control and enters the UK clandestinely or with fake passports etc is an illegal entrant. It doesn’t matter why they’ve come. They have committed an offence under immigration laws and it’s an offence which is technically punishable by fines and/or a custodial sentence (link is to the .Gov website which explains the exact laws) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6650731b8f4cb8fef9f64fad/Irregular+or+unlawful+entry+and+arrival.pdf#page6

However, it’s recognised that this is one of the few ways for someone to claim asylum in the UK, so nobody is prosecuted. The vast majority are dealt with administratively, which means that they’re given the opportunity to explain why they’ve come to the UK. Most will claim asylum and then become what is commonly known as asylum seekers. If their application is granted, they become refugees. If it’s refused and they don’t qualify for leave under some other category (eg, Humanitarian Protection, Article 8 etc) they then become removable from the UK. They aren’t breaking any laws or committing any offences by staying if their claim is rejected. They sometimes have a right of appeal against the decision to refuse their claim and they’re perfectly entitled to remain here while that’s ongoing. If they don’t have a right of appeal, or their appeals have all been refused, then they can choose to leave voluntarily or be removed by the Home Office.

Also, just to repeat what a couple of very sensible posters have already said, Brexit made sod all difference to the small boats. Some of you seem to be under the impression that we were returning thousands of people each year. We weren’t, and we accepted more people under this agreement than we ever removed. The stats for this are published so feel free to check if you don’t believe it.

Lastly, processing claims abroad so we can provide safe passage to the UK and stop fatalities is not going to stop the small boats. Anyone who thinks it will, clearly doesn’t understand how migration works. If you’ve come to the UK from France, or Belgium or any other EU country, then you clearly want to be in the UK over any other safe country. We accept the vast majority of asylum applicants but we’re still refusing thousands each year. If these people are so desperate to risk their lives in a dinghy to get here, do you think that being told ‘no, sorry but you can’t come’ is going to stop them? Of course it isn’t. Except now, they know that we’ll have a record of them, so will be keener than ever to keep their heads down and avoid the authorities. Which leads to greater risks. Which leads to more fatalities. Which nobody wants.

What will you do about the corrupt autocratic leaders and their regimes?

You place a lot on us here and none on the people perpetrating the harm

Let’s start with Sudan, how are you fixing that?

Such an incredibly easy thing to say. I assume like me, you've never had to risk your life fighting for your country. Who knows what would happen to these men if they tried to stand up to whatever threats they are fleeing from. Who knows if it is even possible - can they arm themselves sufficiently to fight against bombs and warplanes? Such an easy throw away comment that completely ignores the realities of the situation.
Young British men were forced to fight in world war 2 through conscription. Many didn't want to. We had to be bailed out by the Americans so I have no time for this smug superiority from British people who've never had to try and raise their families in a war zone .