That it's a massive waste of time, effort, money, lives and we should just bring them over by coach and ferry.

[Ablondiebutagoody]

I have just watched the video from earlier today/yesterday of a migrant boat departing Boulogne. The one where the Dad (presumably) ditches his toddler in the sea in order to get onto the boat. The kid was instantly picked up by French emergency workers and it struck me that this whole situation is completely bizarre.

There were approximately half a dozen lifeguards around the boat on jet skis and paddle boards, probably also a load of police out of frame. The boat will then be shadowed by French coastguard vessels until halfway across the channel, at which point border force/RNLI will pick them up and bring them to the UK. They will then be greated by coaches, a couple of hundred riot police and some gammons before continuing to their destination.

AIBU to think that this is all a total farce and we should simply provide the coaches from the outset?

YABU - The current arrangement is best.

YANBU - Coach and ferry would be better for everyone.

Stopping them and sending them straight back. We should've stuck with Rwanda.

France have proposed asylum processing on their territory for the UK. The UK did not want it. (It would act as a huge pull factor.)

That's strange as I got my figures from the home office. Same source as you.

It's not acting as a deterrent as things are - what would you do to change that? Your comment is useless.

The money they give to the traffickers could be an application fee instead, hopefully then that would deter the traffickers?

Although if people were found to not be eligible for asylum, then wouldn't they just attempt the crossing anyway?

It makes me so mad, when the Conservatives were in power time & time again Labour politicians would say “What we need is safe & legal routes” ie a way for people to apply for asylum in the countries or origin , this would stop so many , not all trying to enter illegally.
Now Labour are in power where are these safe & legal routes?

I have no idea what the answer is. But how desperate must these people be to attempt such a dangerous crossing on a small boat? I often wonder, what if the UK had a catastrophic event and we had to flee to another country? I'm not sure I'd have the bollocks to attempt such a journey, but what would be the alternative?

As mentioned, Labour have introduced community sponsorship as a safe and legal route. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apply-for-full-community-sponsorship/community-sponsorship-guidance-for-prospective-sponsors

We need to turn boats around in the channel and not allow them to cross into UK waters. Assistance should be provided, but only on boats which will take illegal migrants back to France. No refugees come from France, and this ongoing small boat crisis saps the appetite to help people genuinely at risk. The Home Office's own figures shows of those granted asylum after five years only half are working and then only half again are working full time. In short there is a massive cost to us operating at such a high level of small boat landings.

Won't safe and legal routes open the floodgates, even worse than now? Do the people advocating this want the country to be poorer and unrecognisable?

The risks are actually quite limited. Boats are shadowed in French waters and then in UK waters. An uncomfortable crossing for sure, but the overwhelming majority do so safely. They are then well supported in the UK with a good prospect of getting past our flawed system to gain asylum. Once they have done this, they can access full benefits and housing, with specific support for new asylum claimants.

YABU for using the term gammon. No, we shouldn't be making it easier for more unwanted numbers.

The only viable suggestion I’ve heard is a third country (ie the Rwanda scheme) but obviously, this time, with everything in place to go through with it.

Nope. The whole lot of them need sending back where they came from . Most are economic migrants anyway. They've heard we are the land of milk and honey ans they want a slice of it.
As for the bloke who dumped his child in the sea, do we seriously want people like this being allowed in?

Genuine international co operation on how to deal with displaced persons would probably be the most help.

Working together on establishing who is genuinely at risk in their home country, who might have skills to offer etc and then assigning people who need a safe haven to an agreed (between states) destination according to a mix of quotas and person specific criteria would be the better way.

But there goes that pig flying past my window…

How do you know where they came from? How do you send them back?

Although the ‘send them back’ argument is a valid one it’s these things that stop it being viable.

Yes, let's be the trailblazers in making border control a thing of the fucking past. No check in, no security, no visas. Make it that we'll all be able to rip up our passports! Free travel (travel costs paid for by the residents of our chosen destination).

Almost half polled actually agree with you @Ablondiebutagoody that border control is a 'farce'. I genuinely find myself wondering if there's something in the water in the UK. The phrase lunatics taking over the asylum has never felt so relevant.

Whatever France are doing to make people view it as such a terrible country, so unthinkable to ever consider staying there, that they would rather risk their lives to leave it in favour of an equivalent country in terms of wealth, prosperity, privilege, developed status, quality of life and onward opportunities (well, fewer since Brexit)... could we not do the same?

I'm not against controlled, legitimate immigration to the UK at all, for those who show us the basic decency and respect of following the proper legal procedures - exactly the same as we would have to if we wanted to move to Australia, the USA and most other developed countries. But please let's stop pretending that these people are somehow still asylum seekers (even if they began as such, although curiously, their womenfolk and children apparently weren't in any danger); absolutely nobody is having to flee any western European country in fear of losing their lives, or even their basic human needs.

Tbf both options are poor, in terms of which to vote for.

A majority of irregular arrivals by boat are granted asylum so are not economic migrants.

I'm not a supporter of the Conservatives at all, but I can't actually see what the issue was in this case. If people are genuinely fleeing in fear for their lives, they will be overjoyed to reach and be accepted by a comparable but safe country.

If, however, their only acceptable goal is the wealth, prosperity and standard of living of a western European nation (although bizarrely, France doesn't seem to tick these boxes for them), and somewhere like Rwanda is outright rejected... well, at least we can do away with any remote pretence of genuine refugee/asylum status and refer them to the standard legitimate channels for applying for economic immigration to the country of their desires.

Yes good idea, coaches can all be sent to your town.
of course that’s a ridiculous idea. The French need to look at their operations and we need to process them quicker and deport them. No free life just back out as a deterrent to others

The alternative is stopping them from crossing the Channel! At the same time as making the destination country and unattractive option.
There are plenty of unattractive options in Europe and we should follow their lead.

These adults do have a choice not to get on a dinghy in the first place.

the amount they’re paying to do that would cover the airfare though.

So they can get a flight here and claim asylum. So why do you think they choose this route?