Refugees / Asylum seekers crossing the channel

[anonymous-user]

Burwood said:

The article states 300 attempted boat arrivals per day. Can that be even remotely accurate?

No. Haven't read it but presume that's confusing people with boats.

[Digga]

fblm said:

Burwood said:

The article states 300 attempted boat arrivals per day. Can that be even remotely accurate?

No. Haven't read it but presume that's confusing people with boats.

Numbers, stats are only estimates or misreported, but it does bring us to logical questions:

Is is fair to say that the overall numbers of people wishing to enter the UK, for whatever reason, be they refugees, economic migrants, legal, illegal or whatever, far exceed the nation's ability to assimilate them?

The limit (my 'assumption' if you like) being our means to house, accommodate within the welfare state, build sufficient infrastructure - roads, schools, hospitals etc. etc. - and also to assimilate into our culture.

Given the above, surely we have to apply some sort of control of numbers and also have an ability to prevent illegal entry and return?

And so this has to be enforceable/enforced?

[craigjm]

Digga said:

surely we have to apply some sort of control of numbers and also have an ability to prevent illegal entry

How do you propose we do that as an Island with lots of natural entry points from the sea alone?

[BlackLabel]

Burwood said:

BlackLabel said:

A plan to disable dinghies with nets? Good luck with that one Commander.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8827449/M...

The article states 300 attempted boat arrivals per day. Can that be even remotely accurate?

In September the bbc reported that 416 arrived on 28 boats during a single day.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-5400075...

Another report that month stated that the french had stopped 200 migrants in one day.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-5400954...

So on a good day France stop 50% of the boats. Also no doubt some boats are forced to turn back of their own accord (seeing trouble ahead and returning back to shore perhaps).

Even then there wouldn’t be 300 boats per day. More like 80-100.

[LukeBrown66]

There is footage of the French escorting boats to halfway and then leaving them to be picked up by others or the border force.

it is crazy, but hopefully the colder weather discourages them from now a bit.

[Frank7]

LukeBrown66 said:

There is footage of the French escorting boats to halfway and then leaving them to be picked up by others or the border force.

it is crazy, but hopefully the colder weather discourages them from now a bit.

Any chance of a link to this alleged footage?
I find it hard to believe that the Maritime Gendarmerie, (French Coast Guard),
or Marine Nationale, ( France’s Navy), would be involved in it.

[PRTVR]

Frank7 said:

LukeBrown66 said:

There is footage of the French escorting boats to halfway and then leaving them to be picked up by others or the border force.

it is crazy, but hopefully the colder weather discourages them from now a bit.

Any chance of a link to this alleged footage?
I find it hard to believe that the Maritime Gendarmerie, (French Coast Guard),
or Marine Nationale, ( France’s Navy), would be involved in it.

This is it,
https://youtu.be/qyuSrwWl9iY
The handover is filmed near the end
Sadly not reported on the main stream media .

[Condi]

The plan to "disable boats with nets" and return the people to France has one huge issue - once the boat is in UK waters the French have no obligation to take them back, and UK border force are not allowed to stop them in French waters, as that is the responsibility of the French.

It's all nice words and press releases, but totally impractical and will never happen as they say.

[Troubleatmill]

Frank7 said:

Any chance of a link to this alleged footage?
I find it hard to believe that the Maritime Gendarmerie, (French Coast Guard),
or Marine Nationale, ( France’s Navy), would be involved in it.

And- there you go....

This is why we need to handle it like Australia - You will not land on our shores - you will be processed thousands of miles away while your case is looked at

They are paying £10,000 to get here. And how many had the dog eat their papers.

When word gets out that no-one ever gets to the UK - the illegal economic migrants will find another target.

[Mrr T]

Troubleatmill said:

And- there you go....

This is why we need to handle it like Australia - You will not land on our shores - you will be processed thousands of miles away while your case is looked at

They are paying £10,000 to get here. And how many had the dog eat their papers.

When word gets out that no-one ever gets to the UK - the illegal economic migrants will find another target.

So how will you fund all the border control staff working on the other side of the world.

[Digga]

craigjm said:

Digga said:

surely we have to apply some sort of control of numbers and also have an ability to prevent illegal entry

How do you propose we do that as an Island with lots of natural entry points from the sea alone?

You ask a question without first giving the courtesy of an answer to the one I posed.

This is fairly typical. it seems we are in deep denial about the scale and scope of the issue and the reality of the situation. Granted, the reality of potential solutions is by no means clear.

For the record, I would still always argue;

1. The UK must continue to fulfill obligations to refugees, wherever they come from
2. Immigrants are IMHO vital to the functioning of society on many levels. Measures to control immigration need to tread very carefully.

[Murph7355]

BlackLabel said:

Burwood said:

BlackLabel said:

A plan to disable dinghies with nets? Good luck with that one Commander.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8827449/M...

The article states 300 attempted boat arrivals per day. Can that be even remotely accurate?

In September the bbc reported that 416 arrived on 28 boats during a single day.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-5400075...

Another report that month stated that the french had stopped 200 migrants in one day.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-5400954...

So on a good day France stop 50% of the boats. Also no doubt some boats are forced to turn back of their own accord (seeing trouble ahead and returning back to shore perhaps).

Even then there wouldn’t be 300 boats per day. More like 80-100.

I suspect the article was clumsily worded (it's the DM after all).

For "300 attempted boat arrivals per day" read "300 attempted arrivals by boat per day". ie 300 people attempt to get here by boat every day.

In your example, btw, France are stopping a third. If 400 make it over and France also stop 200, then the total is 600 Again, the language around all of this is somewhat blurry...I suspect from some quarters (on both sides of the debate) it is deliberately so.

[Condi]

Troubleatmill said:

This is why we need to handle it like Australia - You will not land on our shores - you will be processed thousands of miles away while your case is looked at

The difference being of course that Australia's "processing centre" for refugees is in PNG - about 50km off the closest point of Aus - and not "thousands of miles away" as you suggest.

Much more akin to us putting an immigration point in France than sending refugees to Ascension Island.

[Digga]

Condi said:

Troubleatmill said:

This is why we need to handle it like Australia - You will not land on our shores - you will be processed thousands of miles away while your case is looked at

The difference being of course that Australia's "processing centre" for refugees is in PNG - about 50km off the closest point of Aus - and not "thousands of miles away" as you suggest.

Much more akin to us putting an immigration point in France than sending refugees to Ascension Island.

I think, if we put it on the Isle of Man, it would be sufficiently perplexing to deter a large number from coming.

[craigjm]

Digga said:

craigjm said:

Digga said:

surely we have to apply some sort of control of numbers and also have an ability to prevent illegal entry

How do you propose we do that as an Island with lots of natural entry points from the sea alone?

You ask a question without first giving the courtesy of an answer to the one I posed.

This is fairly typical. it seems we are in deep denial about the scale and scope of the issue and the reality of the situation. Granted, the reality of potential solutions is by no means clear.

For the record, I would still always argue;

1. The UK must continue to fulfill obligations to refugees, wherever they come from
2. Immigrants are IMHO vital to the functioning of society on many levels. Measures to control immigration need to tread very carefully.

Woah hang on im not disagreeing with you!
I was just asking how you would propose to secure a sea border that covers every inch of our island thats all. Much more difficult than a land border

[Digga]

craigjm said:

Woah hang on im not disagreeing with you!
I was just asking how you would propose to secure a sea border that covers every inch of our island thats all. Much more difficult than a land border

I'd argue it was, far, far easier.

For a kick off, the coastline itself forms sufficient defence in many places. The danger of crossing the busy North Sea shipping lanes is no small barrier either.

Likelihood of illegals landing in boats in, say, West Wales? Pretty slim.

So it's not possible to get it 100% secure, but you can concentrate efforts on the hot spots and do a far better job than we currently do.
However, the real deterrent is there being a genuine threat of deportation for illegal entry. Without that being a technically 'real' scenario, there's little to deter illegals and, more importantly, the criminals who bring them.

[Ian Geary]

Frank7 said:

Any chance of a link to this alleged footage?
I find it hard to believe that the Maritime Gendarmerie, (French Coast Guard),
or Marine Nationale, ( France’s Navy), would be involved in it.

Wel, I can only guess at how hard you'll find it to believe this article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8774131/M...

Yes, the daily mail will have an agenda, but in choosing to ignore it, the guardian, bbc etc have given up their chance to put "their" angle on it.

I can well imagine the pragmatic French giving a shrug of their shoulders and saying "what else do you expect us to do"

It is suggested migrants threaten to jump into the water rather than be towed back to France...I wouldn't expect any professional military force to be expected to routinely call their bluff.


But all the above is doing is distracting people from the underlying issues, which Digga attemped to set out several posts ago:

- should we provide asylum? Yes

- do we accept that whilst deciding those claims we'll have to feed, clothe and house asylum seekers? Seems reasonable (albeit at a cost well below what a UK citizen would receive)

- does the process of assessing and enforcing asylum applications work effectively? No chance. It is a way down a long list of priorities for tax payer funding that so called austerity made worse.

- do we need migrants? Yes (quantity and quality might vary)

- is it sensible to keep track of who is entering the country and what grounds they are doing so? Er, yes. Duh!

- so it follows that unrestricted migration and people leaking into the black economy should be stopped? Yes. To me, this is the destination point.

- is the country "full"? No chance. Not even close. But bear in mind every £1 spent processing asylum claims is £1 not being spent on the residents who generated the country's wealth, and these new residents will need public funds spending on them.

- should the benefit of UK plc economic output be predominantly enjoyed by UK citizens? I think this is hard to argue against, with some negotiation around the edges. Clearly as a leading developed country there has to be some give. We're still a long way behind a lot of poorer countries when it comes to taking on asylum seekers (eg turkey, Italy, Greece)

- should we even support the outdated and inherently racist concept of nationality? Get back in your momentum box. Humans are a few hundred years off that I think.

This is the real friction point.

The left see migration controls as a stick to beat the right.

The right get led a merry song and dance by, frankly, idiots, and make themselves look so stupid they lose any high ground.

The middle ground is an effective asylum system - that is able to say "no", with more understanding and information made available about the issues to avoid it becoming a political circus. This will then allow the clowns to stay in Westminster and do whatever else it is they're supposed to be doing.

[WyrleyD]

Condi said:

Troubleatmill said:

This is why we need to handle it like Australia - You will not land on our shores - you will be processed thousands of miles away while your case is looked at

The difference being of course that Australia's "processing centre" for refugees is in PNG - about 50km off the closest point of Aus - and not "thousands of miles away" as you suggest.

Much more akin to us putting an immigration point in France than sending refugees to Ascension Island.

The PNG processing centre was closed in 2017, the main processing centres are Nauru and Christmas Island both are a looong way from mainland Oz.

[Digga]

Ian Geary said:

>>Post snipped for bevity.<<
The middle ground is an effective asylum system - that is able to say "no", with more understanding and information made available about the issues to avoid it becoming a political circus. This will then allow the clowns to stay in Westminster and do whatever else it is they're supposed to be doing.

Wise words, especially the last line.

Immigration and asylum should be about two things alone;

1. responsibilities and obligations, with regard to genuine refugees
2. responsibilities and obligations to citizens and refugees to secure borders and police who comes in and out for the benefit of all and at a level that is realisic

[Condi]

WyrleyD said:

Condi said:

Troubleatmill said:

This is why we need to handle it like Australia - You will not land on our shores - you will be processed thousands of miles away while your case is looked at

The difference being of course that Australia's "processing centre" for refugees is in PNG - about 50km off the closest point of Aus - and not "thousands of miles away" as you suggest.

Much more akin to us putting an immigration point in France than sending refugees to Ascension Island.

The PNG processing centre was closed in 2017, the main processing centres are Nauru and Christmas Island both are a looong way from mainland Oz.

I don't even know if that is accurate any more, a quick Google suggests that in 2019 they voted to end the practice of offshoring immigration centres totally.


Also a quick google shows that the Australian tax payer was chartering aircraft to fly arrivals from Melbourne to these offshore centres. I wonder what the UK public would make of picking up the bill to fly people "thousands of miles" offshore, only to fly some of them back again!