Channel crossings - what is the solution?

[Snog]

Clearly asylum seekers crossing the channel in inflatable boats is a very bad thing. What is the solution though?

@Hellocatshome

Hell why not go and join the border force to push people back to their deaths?

Are Asylum Seekers being killed in France then?

Stop with this ‘they should stay in France’ nonsense. As I said to you in my previous post, that argument suits us just fine doesn’t it. How convenient of us tucked up here safe in the North Sea. The nasty little migrants can’t reach us here, can they. Your argument is as unjust as it is unkind. We should all take our fair share, regardless of geography, and open up safe routes to let them in.

I certainly agree we should take our fair share, and do it properly, with kindness and meaningful resources.

But fair share suggests a number. And that number will be reached. What then?

We should all take our fair share, regardless of geography,

I'm not saying we shouldnt take our fair share, there should be a system in place whereby they claim asylum in the first safe country and once it is established they are eligible for asylum they are shared out amongst "safe" countries. BUT a lot of them dont want that they want to come to England. They leave their home countries with the sole intention of coming to England. I'm sorry if that is an uncomfortable fact for you but there it is.

Isn't the problem exactly what is being played out on this thread? Clearly not everyone can choose where they want to live but at the same time Britain should it it's share of supporting the world's refugees. Personally, I think we should take people directly from the UN camps and resettle them. I would also like a sensible deal with France along the lines of the EU's with Turkey. That is in return for taking an agreed proportion of France's refugees ( people making clear if they'd prefer UK for family reasons on application), France will accept back everyone who makes it across this making the attempt useless. That way we will have a legal route into the UK, a shared approach with France and a middle way.

@Hellocatshome

We should all take our fair share, regardless of geography,

I'm not saying we shouldnt take our fair share, there should be a system in place whereby they claim asylum in the first safe country and once it is established they are eligible for asylum they are shared out amongst "safe" countries. BUT a lot of them dont want that they want to come to England. They leave their home countries with the sole intention of coming to England. I'm sorry if that is an uncomfortable fact for you but there it is.

It’s not an uncomfortable fact for me in the slightest, far from it, I think people wanting to come to our country is really positive (though god knows why with people like those on this thread living here!). Migrants are not bad people and I’m not scared of them like you appear to be. If they have links to this country, then we should let them in. Once those without any links are left, then those are equally shared and allowed to travel here safely

Migrants are not bad people and I’m not scared of them like you appear to be

I am aware they are not bad people and I am not scared of them I'm not sure how you have jumped to that conclusion I have no problem with migrants coming to this country I hve a problem with people banging on about them coming here to escape violence and persecution. They are coming here because they want to. They have escaped the violence and persecution by reaching Europe. Their onward journey through Europe and across the Channel is because they want to live in England. I also don't have a problem with that before you decided to jump on me again. If I was leaving my country and everything that I knew I would also want to live in a country where I might already know a bit of the language and may have some relatives or friends I can make contact with. I fully understand why they want to come to England but let's stop pretending it is to escape violence and persecution.

Do people have to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach?

No Neither the 1951 Refugee Convention, nor EU law requires a person to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. People trying to cross the Channel can legitimately claim asylum in the UK if they reach it.

The Dublin Regulations is a system which allows one EU country to require another to accept responsibility for a person who has claimed asylum when specific conditions apply, including that the person is shown to have previously made a claim of asylum in another EU country. The intention is that asylum claims are then shared more evenly between EU countries.
The Dublin system only operates within the EU and it will almost certainly cease to apply to the UK following Brexit.

www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/facts-about-refugees/

I’m torn on the issue. And perplexed. I’m not in the UK so don’t have an understanding of the route they are taking. Is it across the Channel? If so, I don’t know how they wouldn’t be spotted pretty much immediately leaving France and hauled back? We have the same issue but the distance and expanse boats take to reach us far exceeds any route/distance I can see that boats could possibly take from France to England.

We have military planes and ships constantly patrolling our waters and while the odd smuggling boat may slip through, due to the vast area and uninhabited coastline, on the whole they are pretty successful. If they spot the boats they basically tow/escort them back to where they came from, ask the other countries military to come for the exchange. Then the boat is destroyed. Often, once the smugglers realise they have been spotted they take matters into their own hands, leave on another boat which they have tagging along in case things go wrong and they set fire to the boat with all their customers on it - pure arseholes. The military races to save the people but they don’t come here, and are taken to offshore processing in less than ideal conditions. If they are deemed to be granted asylum they are then released into the local community where we have the offshoring which is a third world country. They are not happy about this. It’s all meant to be a deterrent to stop people smuggling and get people to apply via correct channels. The number of boats now is minuscule compared to prior to all of these measures being introduced.

I’m torn, because generally, when they flee in genuine fear of their lives (no debate there), they then pass through several ‘safe’ countries in order to get to us. They could apply for asylum in the first or second country and wait there in absolute safety while their claims are processed, granted this takes several years currently but the point is they would be waiting in safety. The thing about these countries though is while safe, they are not great economically which does bring motive into question when not wanting to wait in safety in the queue for processing.

I don’t believe people should be entitled to live wherever they want in the world. I’m exceedingly lucky where I live, but realistically I could actually live out retirement in better conditions in a few other countries if I dumped myself on them and claimed I was entitled to be a citizen there by virtue of my right to live anywhere I want in the world. That’s not really a workable system.

I live in a London borough which attracts a lot of migrants. I am wary of the generalizing statements about them all being nice people. That is not my personal experience.

I have conversed at length with many of them and they are generally very angry about the role we played in destabilising the Middle East.
They see it as their right to enter and live in the UK on account of this. They think very much in terms of 'we' and 'them' and can be quite sweet and diplomatic where they feel it is necessary while being very scathing of UK people and culture 'in private'. I do not feel that any meaningful, authentic form of integration is possible with such a large chip on one's shoulder. That said, they are a reliably large contributor to the upsurge in the birthrate so I think that it is likely that they will establish a replacement culture after a few generations (sub- or main- remains to be seen).

@Iggly

Exactly. They are economic migrants

What exactly does that even mean?

And you’re wrong by the way.

Human beings who’ve committed no crime should have the right to choose where they want to live

None of us have that right. I couldn't go and work in the US, Canada or even France just because I wanted to.

I genuinely don't understand why the French government/police are allowing groups of people who are in their country illegally to live in camps near the ports. I travel regularly in those areas and there are groups of 10 - 20 young males hanging around, eg sitting on grass verges at petrol stations, waiting for lorries, vans or motorhomes to slow so they can jump on. Presumably they are also waiting for small boats to leave France that way. It's no way for human beings to live. If you've seen them running after vehicles, it's also pretty intimidating.

Until they seek asylum, they are illegally in France. Why aren't they being taken in by the police or their border agency? If that happened, the UK could maybe agree to take a percentage of those seeking asylum.

I think biometric identification lies at the root of the solution. Not at the point of entering Europe but from birth in the main countries represented by the influx. This is obviously controversial but it would end the farce of grown men pretending to be schoolkids upon entry and those lying about their country of origin to gain asylum.

@Iggly

Exactly. They are economic migrants

What exactly does that even mean?

And you’re wrong by the way.

Human beings who’ve committed no crime should have the right to choose where they want to live

Not true - for example, if you want to work in Japan, you need a degree. That’s just the way it is!

@Snog

Should we allow people to claim asylum in the UK without leaving France?

Why do people need to claim asylum from France? Are they being persecuted in France?

@sotty6 what I mean is to stay in France whilst the UK processes their application to live in the UK and if successful they can then legally and safely enter the UK.

I think I agree with PP who said we agree a number of refugees annually and provide them safe passage from the UN refugee camps. I thinks that's the best we can do. The UK cannot solve the problems of all citizens worldwide.

Anyone arriving illegally could then be deported immediately. This would disincentivise people from trying to enter the UK illegally and thus save lives.

@rslsys

Dover is a seaport and we have a fleet of underused luxury liners. Moor a liner in Dover and fill it with migrants as they arrive. When it is full, sail it round to the Med, moor it at a French port and offload the passengers for the French to deal with as they should have done in the first place.

Accompanied by a flotilla of cannon boats yto enforce landing no doubt? The jingoism runs strong in some people.

As to what France should or shouldn't have done, they already handle three times the number of asylum applications the bloody UK does, so what on earth do you think gives you the right to preach at them? And as far as e.g. Iraqis are concerned, that's without even having invaded the country in the first place.

@KonTikki

In the immediate term its got to be joint patrols, foot and maritime, with the French. Apparently Boris has already blown that with the French by writing an "open" letter.

Having pissed off Europe with Brexit, we're now managing to piss off our nearest neighbour. Just brilliant

'Our nearest neighbour' has hated us since time immemorial. Their police stand by and watch the people smugglers put their customers into boats and do nothing, even the day after many died. One wonders what kick-backs are changing hands. There needs to be a distinction between economic migrants and those fleeing genuine oppression.

Human beings who’ve committed no crime should have the right to choose where they want to live

Ignoring the implicit nonsense in this, what happens when they do committ a crime againt the country that's given them sanctuary? There would be a long line of state supported lawyers ready to plead their 'right' to stay, to continue their crimes.

Re Macron uninviting us I agree with pp it’s reactive petulance and probably because he doesn’t want a solution

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/26/channel-crossings-france-uk-johnson-macron-letter

We are one of the most densely populated countries in Europe, how many more do we need at taxpayers expense, people suggesting letting come here to claim asylum, they arrive with no passport, no paperwork etc, how do you judge their asylum claim? We have just stopped flights from South Africa because of a new variant, but people seem to be happy to let anyone from anywhere as long as they cross the channel on a boat

Human beings who’ve committed no crime should have the right to choose where they want to live

There is a difference between having a right to emigrate, then choosing to emigrate and also in doing it legally or illegally and even then by the most stupid means available. If these human beings don’t have the brain cells to understand that rubber dinghy plus ocean is risking almost certain death by drowning, then that’s their problem. Not mine or anyone else’s. We are not obligated to protect the stupid from their own stupidity.

@PAFMO

We could stop doing business with the countries that are so corrupt that people feel forced to cross continents and get into rubber dinghies.

Short term we provide safe alternative routes. Long term, we rapidly address climate change and global inequality.

Once here you can’t simply send the back if the claim for asylum has failed the returning country has to accept them, we seen recently what a failed asylum seeker can do In Liverpool

@Unphased

Once here you can’t simply send the back if the claim for asylum has failed the returning country has to accept them, we seen recently what a failed asylum seeker can do In Liverpool

Indeed, how different it could have been if they had been supported and integrated when they arrived in this country.