Illegal migrant crossings in the channel
Discussion
I wonder if somebody can clarify the following.
Illegal migrants are jumping in to boats, risking their lives and those that have to go out and save them to ferry them across.
They are trying to enter the UK illegally and ignoring established asylum or legal migrant/visa entry methods. Why then, when the boats arrive on UK shores, doesn't the UK say "welcome to the UK, now here is your ticket on the next ferry back to France" ?
What is stopping the UK sending illegal entrants back to the previous country of exit in the same manner that the UK border force do at airports?
If the above took place then it would instantly make illegal boat crossings a pointless exercise.
Illegal migrants are jumping in to boats, risking their lives and those that have to go out and save them to ferry them across.
They are trying to enter the UK illegally and ignoring established asylum or legal migrant/visa entry methods. Why then, when the boats arrive on UK shores, doesn't the UK say "welcome to the UK, now here is your ticket on the next ferry back to France" ?
What is stopping the UK sending illegal entrants back to the previous country of exit in the same manner that the UK border force do at airports?
If the above took place then it would instantly make illegal boat crossings a pointless exercise.
France must be a complete dumpstation if theyre jumping in the waters to get here.
The key driver is I believe monetary for these people, its sod all to do with being in danger, France is a long way from syria/iraq/somalia etc, theyre coming here for the benefits, and of course theyre all lawyers, oil workers, chemists, technically inclined....just the kinds of people we are crying out for, hardly any women just mostly younger men who know how to use assault weapons.
Still I think they should all be just let in without any checks at all, they should be given benefits that ex servicemen dont get ( cos they like living in a box under a bridge) , free houses and cars etc. Theyve all got the latest Iphones anyway so no need to give them a new one.....Uk would definitely be a better place for unlimited migration.
The key driver is I believe monetary for these people, its sod all to do with being in danger, France is a long way from syria/iraq/somalia etc, theyre coming here for the benefits, and of course theyre all lawyers, oil workers, chemists, technically inclined....just the kinds of people we are crying out for, hardly any women just mostly younger men who know how to use assault weapons.
Still I think they should all be just let in without any checks at all, they should be given benefits that ex servicemen dont get ( cos they like living in a box under a bridge) , free houses and cars etc. Theyve all got the latest Iphones anyway so no need to give them a new one.....Uk would definitely be a better place for unlimited migration.
s1962a said:
France want £30m to help them with this - seems like a small price to pay to stop the thousands of illegal migrants coming over. We could could take it out of the foreign aid budget - as seems the standard answer for ‘where is the money going to come from’ type questions.
Good pointGroundZero said:
I wonder if somebody can clarify the following.
Illegal migrants are jumping in to boats, risking their lives and those that have to go out and save them to ferry them across.
They are trying to enter the UK illegally and ignoring established asylum or legal migrant/visa entry methods. Why then, when the boats arrive on UK shores, doesn't the UK say "welcome to the UK, now here is your ticket on the next ferry back to France" ?
What is stopping the UK sending illegal entrants back to the previous country of exit in the same manner that the UK border force do at airports?
If the above took place then it would instantly make illegal boat crossings a pointless exercise.
I suspect the argument might be about being able to be certain where they set off from.Illegal migrants are jumping in to boats, risking their lives and those that have to go out and save them to ferry them across.
They are trying to enter the UK illegally and ignoring established asylum or legal migrant/visa entry methods. Why then, when the boats arrive on UK shores, doesn't the UK say "welcome to the UK, now here is your ticket on the next ferry back to France" ?
What is stopping the UK sending illegal entrants back to the previous country of exit in the same manner that the UK border force do at airports?
If the above took place then it would instantly make illegal boat crossings a pointless exercise.
Anyways...AIUI we're talking to the French about the problem today. Will be interesting to see what the outcome is. I suspect lots of "non". But who knows.
I also suspect there will be € discussed...not that I believe we should be paying a single one.
There was a chap from Calais on the news this morning noting they're doing what they can...a former Sea Lord (I think) questioned that...but if we take it at face value, presumably the French can let us know how many millions of illegals they are stopping crossing to underscore that those coming through are negligible (so negligible that if we put them on a ferry back they'll happily take them, process them and use the intelligence gained to close down more holes in the border).
The Sea Lord made a reasonable point that if this sort of thing happened and it was clear passage would not result in people staying here, the trafficking would stop.
coolg said:
this is being discussed on the Farage Thread
It probably warrants a thread of its own.s1962a said:
France want £30m to help them with this - seems like a small price to pay to stop the thousands of illegal migrants coming over. We could could take it out of the foreign aid budget - as seems the standard answer for ‘where is the money going to come from’ type questions.
If the £30m is drawn up in a contract lasting forever that allows us to send any illegals we pick up in The Channel back to France, happy days.But as France seem to be taking the Turkey approach to life, you just know that won't be the case
Murph7355 said:
If the £30m is drawn up in a contract lasting forever that allows us to send any illegals we pick up in The Channel back to France, happy days.
But as France seem to be taking the Turkey approach to life, you just know that won't be the case
Can we really dictate terms though? Seems like we are the ones that need France’s help and not the other way around. Don’t get me wrong, I want this solved too, but this is like going to a company that has a service that you desperately want, and telling them how they are going to supply it to you and at what cost, and then asking them to justify it. They can just tell you to fBut as France seem to be taking the Turkey approach to life, you just know that won't be the case
k off, which is what I suspect France might do.GroundZero said:
What is stopping the UK sending illegal entrants back to the previous country of exit in the same manner that the UK border force do at airports?
Because as a nation (at governmental and societal levels), we’re not heartless bds.Dont Panic said:
The key driver is I believe monetary for these people.
If it was, they’d continue heading north to Scandinavia where financial support is far greater.The two primary reasons are language and opportunity. English is spoken or at least understood by a very large proportion of the world’s population. The UK, along with Germany, are seen as countries that offer the greatest opportunity for people to secure a decent life. A lot of the Syrian refugees are not poor.
s1962a said:
France want £30m to help them with this - seems like a small price to pay to stop the thousands of illegal migrants coming over. We could could take it out of the foreign aid budget
It probably will.One of the reasons for Foreign Aid is the supressing illegal immigration – if you help a country to prosper then its population is less likely to seek a better life elsewhere. This fact gets lost amongst the headlines but it does work. There’s an argument to suggest we should in fact spend more on Foreign Aid but those that are the most vocal about the migrant issue tend also to be the most vocal against Foreign Aid.
ReverendCounter said:
Off topic but some BBC idiot has just had a piece broadcast in 11.30 news on one of their stations. Said idiot was happily interviewing migrants in the channel as if they were on a boat trip: 'Hello, Hello! How are you, are you alright? Where are you from? Where are you going?'.
For balance, ITV did exactly the same last weeks1962a said:
France want £30m to help them with this - seems like a small price to pay to stop the thousands of illegal migrants coming over. We could could take it out of the foreign aid budget - as seems the standard answer for ‘where is the money going to come from’ type questions.
It won’t make any difference. Was reading that France has over 300 miles of coastline where you could launch a dinghy and simply put, that can’t be totally policed 24/7. This is a problem that’ll never really go away despite political rhetoric claiming it can.Besides, those coming over in dinghies and on the backs of lorries are merely the tip of the iceberg with illegal immigration. Those overstaying temp work/tourist/education visas is where the real problems lie. It is simply down to our government to deal with these overstayers effectively but it’s easier (and cheaper) to deflect blame onto the french, the EU, whatever than look at the fact that successive governments have failed to tackle immigration despite trying to look tough in front of cameras.
Don’t blame the desperate risking their lives in rubber boats, blame the incompetents in government and ignore those who seek to capitalise from the situation.
s1962a said:
France want £30m to help them with this - seems like a small price to pay to stop the thousands of illegal migrants coming over. We could could take it out of the foreign aid budget - as seems the standard answer for ‘where is the money going to come from’ type questions.
If that amount of money would genuinely fix the problem the government would have to be crazy not to pay it.However "once you have paid him the Danegeld/ You never get rid of the Dane" and the French might do a Turkey on us to extort ever more money.
AIUI, France has taken a lot of immigrants, much more than the UK.
French tax payers are expected to pay for this.
If the odd few get fed up and decide to move to the UK then France has no incentive to stop them.
UK needs to negotiate with France and pay more towards this upkeep because we are actually getting off lightly which is why the French are very bitter about this.
Also, because as a civilised country we care about the health and condition of other human lives, you can't just dump them back. You have to assess each person's health and condition before any decision can be made.
As to foreign aid, the government needs to make a better campaign at making the public understand that this is to help other countries which in turn makes our lives better i.e. we help poorer countries who in turn can help themselves then we can trade with them, help those countries where people are suffering then they don't need to risk their lives coming here.
French tax payers are expected to pay for this.
If the odd few get fed up and decide to move to the UK then France has no incentive to stop them.
UK needs to negotiate with France and pay more towards this upkeep because we are actually getting off lightly which is why the French are very bitter about this.
Also, because as a civilised country we care about the health and condition of other human lives, you can't just dump them back. You have to assess each person's health and condition before any decision can be made.
As to foreign aid, the government needs to make a better campaign at making the public understand that this is to help other countries which in turn makes our lives better i.e. we help poorer countries who in turn can help themselves then we can trade with them, help those countries where people are suffering then they don't need to risk their lives coming here.
Murph7355 said:
I suspect the argument might be about being able to be certain where they set off from.
Surely that is a non-argument because as with at an airport the border force simply arranges a flight back to the country of departure. Therefore with these dingy arrivals, simply send them back to France.
The word instantly spreads back on the shores of France and illegal crossing become pointless in the matter of hours.
Illegal people trafficking problem solved.
Danger to migrants making the crossing solved.
Danger to those having to go out and rescue/ferry service solved.
Ok, at an airport the arrival tends to have an arrival ticket from a flight number etc., which would identify the place of departure, but there are still cases whereby people travel on fake invalid passports using fake visas etc. A person could even dispose of their passport at an airport before immigration process, they are still sent back. Which has made illegal flight entrants pointless and the numbers who still foolishly attempt it are minimal.
So surely a small dingy arriving from across the channel it would be clear in any rational court that their place of departure is 'France' and the simplest solution is to send them back on an arranged ferry.
Its as if there is political will on behalf of the UK government for this issue to be made worse than it needs to be and for it to be an ongoing political issue.
I can’t blame them for trying. They just want a better life and the U.K. is probably the most tolerant country in Europe. The problem is we either open the gates and let everyone in or we have to send them back to France, otherwise it makes a mockery of the immigration system.
I don’t like it, but I think the U.K. needs to be tough on those attempting the crossing.
I don’t like it, but I think the U.K. needs to be tough on those attempting the crossing.
leef44 said:
AIUI, France has taken a lot of immigrants, much more than the UK.
French tax payers are expected to pay for this.
If the odd few get fed up and decide to move to the UK then France has no incentive to stop them.
UK needs to negotiate with France and pay more towards this upkeep because we are actually getting off lightly which is why the French are very bitter about this.
Also, because as a civilised country we care about the health and condition of other human lives, you can't just dump them back. You have to assess each person's health and condition before any decision can be made.
As to foreign aid, the government needs to make a better campaign at making the public understand that this is to help other countries which in turn makes our lives better i.e. we help poorer countries who in turn can help themselves then we can trade with them, help those countries where people are suffering then they don't need to risk their lives coming here.
What’s your definition of an “odd few” ? French tax payers are expected to pay for this.
If the odd few get fed up and decide to move to the UK then France has no incentive to stop them.
UK needs to negotiate with France and pay more towards this upkeep because we are actually getting off lightly which is why the French are very bitter about this.
Also, because as a civilised country we care about the health and condition of other human lives, you can't just dump them back. You have to assess each person's health and condition before any decision can be made.
As to foreign aid, the government needs to make a better campaign at making the public understand that this is to help other countries which in turn makes our lives better i.e. we help poorer countries who in turn can help themselves then we can trade with them, help those countries where people are suffering then they don't need to risk their lives coming here.
The answer is to address the problems in their homelands not for all the people to move to Europe
If they genuinely need help then it should be given. But im not sure you should be able to pick and choose the country you claim assylum in. They pass through many safe countries to get here and its not on imo.
Also... what a load of rubbish about them not being able to turn them around for safety reasons. If i was suspected of carrying loads of class a drugs the nca would have no problem boarding my boat. And the rnli do a decent job at rescuing peoome from dinghies.
Perhaps we should allow people to claim assylum at our embassies if we dont already. That would allow them to have a chance without needing to break the law and enter illegally.
Also... what a load of rubbish about them not being able to turn them around for safety reasons. If i was suspected of carrying loads of class a drugs the nca would have no problem boarding my boat. And the rnli do a decent job at rescuing peoome from dinghies.
Perhaps we should allow people to claim assylum at our embassies if we dont already. That would allow them to have a chance without needing to break the law and enter illegally.
How much is it costing to put each illegal up in 4 star hotel accommodation around the country? Anyone know?
I think the thing that winds people up the most is the fact that we send boats out to meet and greet the illegals, bring them in, give them quality accommodation... basically the message we're sending is 'come on over'.
I think the thing that winds people up the most is the fact that we send boats out to meet and greet the illegals, bring them in, give them quality accommodation... basically the message we're sending is 'come on over'.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff