Refugees / Asylum seekers crossing the channel
Discussion
Something I’ve long wondered (but, on some levels, have been slightly afraid to ask) is why do Refugees/ Asylum seekers cross the channel to reach the UK?
(can we have sensible answers avoiding any racists/xenophobic comments please)
As we’ve seen from the tragic news stories recently, crossing the channel is a very dangerous thing to do, so the risk/reward ratio of getting to the UK vs staying in mainland Europe (France/Spain/Germany etc) is obviously viewed as high enough to warrant the risk.
Similarly, for the despicable people traffickers, presumably the further the destination/higher number of borders, the trickier the process, so from a (horrible) business point of view, it is not easier to offer passage to mainland Europe?
p.s. I understand why many Refugees/ Asylum seekers LEAVE their countries – this question is about the choice of end destination and the reasons why.
(can we have sensible answers avoiding any racists/xenophobic comments please)
As we’ve seen from the tragic news stories recently, crossing the channel is a very dangerous thing to do, so the risk/reward ratio of getting to the UK vs staying in mainland Europe (France/Spain/Germany etc) is obviously viewed as high enough to warrant the risk.
Similarly, for the despicable people traffickers, presumably the further the destination/higher number of borders, the trickier the process, so from a (horrible) business point of view, it is not easier to offer passage to mainland Europe?
p.s. I understand why many Refugees/ Asylum seekers LEAVE their countries – this question is about the choice of end destination and the reasons why.
Tankrizzo said:
The other thing to remember is that sometimes the perception is that 99% of immigrants pass through every other European country to come here. This isn't the case though, hundreds of thousands disappear into the black economies of Germany/France etc every year. Germany has a terrible problem with unregistered immigrant workers in some cities.
Of course, but what percentage pass through through the UK to reach another European country?The question - that has broadly been answered - is why take the extra (dangerous) step to reach the UK.
It's a bit like the gameshow 'who wants to be a millionaire' - if the final jump was from £500,000 to £500,050 (with the risk of losing it all), no-one would take that risk. It's only because the reward is so high, that some people are prepared to gamble.
In crossing the channel, the stakes are infinitely higher (risking their lives), so the rewards must be much greater also.
LukeBrown66 said:
We are not equipped to deal with it quite honestly and politicians can huff and puff all they want, investment in border force and a change in the law is what is required. You will never stop it in reality the crossing is too short and the coast in both coasts is too wide.
It certainly needs addressing, as if it was properly (and perhaps, 'harshly' controlled), there would likely be more tolerance and acceptance in the UK (and dare I say, welcoming) for those poor souls who genuinely need refuge.silverfoxcc said:
But they choose to risk their lives, and the only answer i can think of is the promise ( perceived or otherwise, we see a lot of propaganda from the right wing mobs saying how much they get etc ,but despite asking for proof none is forthcoming from them) of a land of milk and honey.which they know gheres is no chance of getting it going through the proper channels ( no pun intended)
I don't think the UK would have acquired such a reputation if there wasn't a degree of truth to it.And there's no way people would be risking their lives leaving a 'safe' EU country if it was a long-expired rumour.
The 'land of milk and honey' thing - like you say, they perhaps don't get as much as the extreme right wing propaganda suggests, but the simple fact that people continue to risk their lives coming here, tells you there is some truth in the theory.
SeeFive said:
If they were truly refugees, I would be in favour of providing safety. However, I would suggest that most of the people entering illegally from France having “lost” all their ID are far from refugees. Refugees are typically happy with living in a safe country next door where they won’t be killed, as I saw whilst in Tunisia when Libya kicked off. It is not a 4* hotel lifestyle, but it is safe. Funnily enough, a number of those that did not return are now operating as armed bandits on the Tunisian roads heading south towards Lybia.
My thoughts (which will be unpopular with the noisiest virtue signallers) are these boat people are chancers trying for refugee status falsely as an economic migrant, avoiding the legitimate process as it is expensive, long winded, requires mega commitment to see it through, and frankly they have little chance of success given their lack of credentials to show that they are people that we need in the UK.
I don’t see too many oppressive countries bordering the U.K., so why else would they be heading here with no identification when they are perfectly safe in France? It isn’t about safety. It is about perceived opportunity for a lifestyle improvement. We have a process for people who want to try to obtain that status.
I am all for immigration. I have personally sponsored legal immigrants to the U.K. who have gone through the correct, time consuming and expensive process. Committed people, not chancers in dinghys breaking the law on day 1 of their entry.
Good post, succinctly put.My thoughts (which will be unpopular with the noisiest virtue signallers) are these boat people are chancers trying for refugee status falsely as an economic migrant, avoiding the legitimate process as it is expensive, long winded, requires mega commitment to see it through, and frankly they have little chance of success given their lack of credentials to show that they are people that we need in the UK.
I don’t see too many oppressive countries bordering the U.K., so why else would they be heading here with no identification when they are perfectly safe in France? It isn’t about safety. It is about perceived opportunity for a lifestyle improvement. We have a process for people who want to try to obtain that status.
I am all for immigration. I have personally sponsored legal immigrants to the U.K. who have gone through the correct, time consuming and expensive process. Committed people, not chancers in dinghys breaking the law on day 1 of their entry.
Mrr T said:
craigjm said:
The UN convention is pretty clear that to have a valid claim for asylum you have to claim in the first safe signatory country that you come to after leaving your country of origin . On this definition the UK as an island in on the north west of Europe should get very few asylum seekers. There will of course be some valid asylum seekers in those boats who have been exploited by people smugglers but the vast majority are economic migrants just trying their luck. Unfortunately for them, often their luck runs out.
Anyone caught in a boat in the English Channel in this way should be finger printed and identified and then sent straight back to France to be dealt with who in turn should identify their first safe country. The issue with this, of course, is that based on where lots of migrants come from this would put the burden squarely on countries in southern Europe which would not be fair and equitable. In my view the EU and the UK when it leaves needs to create a joint UN convention declaration whereby all countries pay into a process where migrants are processed and those that are given protection are then dispersed out across the continent based on an agreed quota. For those that are deemed not to need UN protection their fingerprints and DNA should be taken with as much ID information as we can get and a database accessible across the continent should be created from this. They should then be followed by robust attempts to return them to their country of origin. If this is unknown then a best assessment should be made based on the information we have and the UN resolutions around declaring someone stateless should be revoked to allow this to happen.
A small problem with your post is that the first safe country rule is a myth. Anyone caught in a boat in the English Channel in this way should be finger printed and identified and then sent straight back to France to be dealt with who in turn should identify their first safe country. The issue with this, of course, is that based on where lots of migrants come from this would put the burden squarely on countries in southern Europe which would not be fair and equitable. In my view the EU and the UK when it leaves needs to create a joint UN convention declaration whereby all countries pay into a process where migrants are processed and those that are given protection are then dispersed out across the continent based on an agreed quota. For those that are deemed not to need UN protection their fingerprints and DNA should be taken with as much ID information as we can get and a database accessible across the continent should be created from this. They should then be followed by robust attempts to return them to their country of origin. If this is unknown then a best assessment should be made based on the information we have and the UN resolutions around declaring someone stateless should be revoked to allow this to happen.
https://fullfact.org/immigration/refugees-first-sa...
If your car develops an issue on the motorway, and you can safely nurse the car to the next services, no-one in their right mind would decide to drive to the next again services just because the facilities are better.
Jazzy Jag said:
Spend everything they have and more to get somewhere they don't need to go?
They are looking for a return on their investment
I think that hits the nail on the head.They are looking for a return on their investment
I'm glad I started this thread, and there has been 11 pages of decent, grown-up chat from many different viewpoints, but I haven't seen anything that changes my initial hunch that:
Those coming illegally to the UK are essentially not doing so to flee their unsafe country, but are doing so to get a better quality of life than other safe EU countries will offer them, and therefore I feel the 'humanitarian/salvation' argument and pressure on the UK, is flawed and overplayed.
I don't think even the most extreme anti-immigrant supporter would argue that, as humans, we have a moral obligation to help those in genuine need of salvation - however I think where the disagreements start when 'seeking a better quality of life' is dressed up as 'needing salvation', and the grey area in between the two.
craigjm said:
monthefish said:
I think that hits the nail on the head.
I'm glad I started this thread, and there has been 11 pages of decent, grown-up chat from many different viewpoints, but I haven't seen anything that changes my initial hunch that:
Those coming illegally to the UK are essentially not doing so to flee their unsafe country, but are doing so to get a better quality of life than other safe EU countries will offer them, and therefore I feel the 'humanitarian/salvation' argument and pressure on the UK, is flawed and overplayed.
I don't think even the most extreme anti-immigrant supporter would argue that, as humans, we have a moral obligation to help those in genuine need of salvation - however I think where the disagreements start when 'seeking a better quality of life' is dressed up as 'needing salvation', and the grey area in between the two.
The issue is identifying one from the other. If we take a genuine asylum seeker are they not also trying to “seek a better quality of life”? Ok so it’s based on a desire not to be persecuted but it does have some cross overs with the economic migrants I'm glad I started this thread, and there has been 11 pages of decent, grown-up chat from many different viewpoints, but I haven't seen anything that changes my initial hunch that:
Those coming illegally to the UK are essentially not doing so to flee their unsafe country, but are doing so to get a better quality of life than other safe EU countries will offer them, and therefore I feel the 'humanitarian/salvation' argument and pressure on the UK, is flawed and overplayed.
I don't think even the most extreme anti-immigrant supporter would argue that, as humans, we have a moral obligation to help those in genuine need of salvation - however I think where the disagreements start when 'seeking a better quality of life' is dressed up as 'needing salvation', and the grey area in between the two.
It could be argued we're all seeking a better quality of life....how many of us are actually in fear of our lives.
Edited by monthefish on Tuesday 1st September 14:30
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff