AIBU to be deeply concerned about the recent influx of 30k+ undocumented arrivals in Spain?

[ChirpyUmberBiscuit]

AIBU to feel really unsettled by the recent news coming out of Spain and Ceuta? Reports are showing that tens of thousands of undocumented migrants have crossed over in such a short window, completely overwhelming local infrastructure, reception centers, and security forces.

I know migration is always a sensitive and compassionate topic, but looking at these numbers practically, I don't see how any European border region can absorb 30,000 to 50,000 arrivals almost overnight without severe strain on public resources, local housing, and emergency services.

What worries me even more is the precedent it sets for the rest of Europe and the UK down the line. Surely there has to be a firm balance between humanitarian support and actual, enforceable border control?

Am I being completely unreasonable to view this as a serious policy and security crisis, or are others feeling equally concerned about where this leads?

Would love to hear honest thoughts on how this should actually be handled!

So you don't have a clue then. Thanks for clearing that up

How? Do you deny there are people in the conservative party that are highly well read and intelligent and knowledgeable about complex pieces of law?

Sir Geoffrey Cox (former AG) is a King's counsel. He's a very intelligent man.

And their leader is someone who lied about being offered a scholarship to Stanford.

I wouldn’t place my hopes on their collective legal brains.

Do you not think experts in law have ideas and knowledge far above randoms on MN?

Why are you promoting a policy without understanding the drawbacks of it? Why aren't the Tories and Reform explaining how they will deal with the GFA with no EHCR? It's a very important question. It makes them look like they have no clue. And are just pushing populist bollocks

I did not say Denmark have a right wing government. I said they have a left wing government in terms of social and fiscal policies but that their policies wrt immigration are right wing. The left wing parties pivoted in terms of immigration to prevent the rise of right wing parties.

Personally, I believe labelling people/parties as left/right wing because of a single belief is ridiculously simplistic. Many of my leanings are mildly left wing, particularly in terms of fiscal and social policy. I have been labelled right wing due to my position on the trans issue. I believe women’s spaces should be protected but that trans people are perfectly entitled to live their lives as they wish so long as women’s rights are not trampled on.

I could also be labelled right wing in terms of immigration as I do believe in controls on immigration and a managed process. I also believe genuine refugees should be protected but economic migration should be managed in a sustainable way. I also believe there are concerns that need to be addressed in terms of the impact of migration on housing, education, health etc.

I used the term right wing in the way it is generally used these days wrt migration. The terminology was much easier in the past when left/right referred to economics rather than its current usage which emphasises cultural issues.

I also think that hysteria over any issue involving migrants helps nobody.

None of those experts seemed to be particularly vocal wrt the impact of a hard brexit on the GFA, so no, I wouldn’t have much faith in them

You're unlikely to hear any justification, because clearly there isn't one

And on the howls of "Who said it??" you're unlikely to hear anyone say "I support uncontrolled/undocumented migration" either, because it's couched in other terms such as:

"If you don't make other countries equal folk will come somewhere richer"
"You ignored climate change so now they'll have no choice but to leave"
"We colonised their countries and this is payback"
"I'm involved in supporting refugees" - which too often translates as advising irregular migrants which lies to tell and even providing scripts

Naturally they insist this is completely different from supporting a lack of control, but the instant that control's actually attempted they're all off again with cries about "inhumanity", "racism", "concentration camps" and all the rest

So in other words, as was done with Brexit, throw NI under the bus and try to tear up the GFA.

Ok? And? That's a completely irrelevant to the question.

She commissioned a big review headed up by Lord David Wolfson KC. He'll know more than any of us.

Shouldn't she do the review first to see if it's possible before announcing the policy?

Seems amateurish

The Tories commissioned a review.

A review after announcing the policy? That's not very smart at all

Yeah tell that to Rhiannon whites family and the loved ones of others who have been attacked/raped/killed by illegal immigrants. What part of "illegally entered the country, undocumented and free to roam" dont you understand?

What are you on about? This makes no difference. He's done his research and completed the review.

If we're taking Big Minds and legal heavyweights, here's an analysis of the ECHR from Oxford. It's a large document but here is the brief version

*The analysed benefits of staying in the ECHR are:

• Safeguarding basic rights in workplaces, courtrooms, hospitals, care homes and newsrooms.
• Protecting people at risk, including children, people in care, and victims of domestic violence and modern slavery.
• Defending privacy in an age of mass surveillance and data harvesting (e.g. DNA retention limits and bulk interception safeguards).
• Enabling accountability after major failures such as the Hillsborough disaster.
• Protecting free speech and democracy, and respecting parliamentary sovereignty.
• Providing increased protection compared with common law protections, including by providing an external source of accountability through the European Court of Human Rights
• Providing rights protections that stand the test of time, adapting to new circumstances and new threats.
• Supporting peace and stability in Northern Ireland.
• Enabling cooperation on border control, security, data sharing and tackling cross-border crime.
• Strengthening the UK’s voice and credibility in the Council of Europe and on the global stage.*

How many of those are people prepared to go without, in the hope that leaving it would stop the boats? Another Big Mind has also analysed how much difference leaving the treaty would have on the small boat influx, and it turns out that it could be very little. That it might well not be the magic bullet that people think.

Meanwhile we'll have lost all those rights above. And note that the last but one actually supports cooperation between border forces etc.

😆

So they are going to tell us their solution to the GFA ECHR issue? I've not heard a single word from them about it

Laws we want can be kept via domestic legislation

The review is there and out. You go read it if you want. You have a brain.

Ha ha, classic left wing contextomy. We only need some faux misunderstanding of per capita, a mention of the British empire and we’ll have a full house.

You’ve completely misrepresented the statement. In a party manifesto paragraph explaining that they believe in open borders, you quote ‘managed immigration’ neglecting that whole context of the paragraph or the fact that ‘managed immigration’ is followed by ‘where people can move if they wish to do so’.

This is the high quality debate I'm here for. Thanks

Their response "but white man bad too"

I don’t think leaving the ECHR is the answer. I think we need to declare a national emergency and simply ignore ECHR and take the fines, everyone else will follow and it will be reformed.
The longer this situation continues, the more sectarian parties emerge, the more society splinters into ethnic enclaves and the more insidious and bold the far left become.

Yes I think I posted similar stats on another thread. Per head of population for the particular demographic, ME men from war torn areas are much more likely to be convicted or charged with SA. I dont think its wrong to extrapolate from that, that the rate of crime is much higher.