Proof as in it was starting to act as a deterrent. But it wasn't given time. The way it was enacted and what it cost I can't defend. Interesting to see what Labour come up with as numbers seem to be increasing. As I stated it could be their downfall as illegal immigration is not popular with the voters.
Its really bizarre that you believe they are all asylum seekers and not illegal economic migrants?
Lets just start by ringfencing those that arrive on these shores illegally without identity papers. they should be deported to either a country of origin (given we won't know where that is) or back to France.The figures do not back up your proof, and, yes, it would be bizarre if I thought that everyone was an asylum seeker, but I don’t and have never have. Given some asylum claims are rejected it is evident that not everyone is eligible for asylum. Using your metric, is it not equally deluded or dishonest to think they are all economic migrants and not asylum seekers?
Lets just start by ringfencing those that arrive on these shores illegally without identity papers. they should be deported to either a country of origin (given we won't know where that is) or back to France.
You are so misguided and deluded if you think we can accommodate everyone that makes it to these shores. It should be the strongest message yet. If you pitch up in the UK without permission or travel documents you wil NOT in any circumstances be allowed to stay.
... then we can move on to those that stay illegally by overstaying their visas.
We also had oil.
They developed their oil industry, invested their revenues then diversified.
The result is phenomenal, ongoing success, and development.
Remarkable vision and energy by the 'familes' of a union which is not yet 60 years old......meanwhile in broken Britain !!
I never said they were all economic migrants did I. But most certainly are.The figures do not back up your proof, and, yes, it would be bizarre if I thought that everyone was an asylum seeker, but I don’t and have never have. Given some asylum claims are rejected it is evident that not everyone is eligible for asylum. Using your metric, is it not equally deluded or dishonest to think they are all economic migrants and not asylum seekers?
I never said they were all economic migrants did I. But most certainly are.
So if it is that bad..... Why the UK? Why not the first country they happen on? If it is so bad? I genuinely do not get it. Why risk your life when it is not necessary? Get to safety and settle, then maybe when you have the means to do so consider trying to come to the UK. The fact they do ont do this and the majority are fit young men leads me to be sceptical.Again, with the papers nonsense. Refugees and asylum seekers are unlikely to have papers given they are fleeing from a Government that will either a) not grant them papers or b) shoot them if they were dumb enough to try.
We do accommodate most that make it these shores. We try and avoid the issue by making it impossible to get to these shores, a policy that drives the small boat crossings. But when they get here the majority stay. That is a fact.
Overstaying visas is a separate issue and a straightforward offence. Chasing students and Aussie bar staff - meh, can’t say I care.
Usual simple question. If you lived in the first safe country where an African or Asian refugee might land, would you think they should all stay there or would you rather they disperse?Lets just start by ringfencing those that arrive on these shores illegally without identity papers. they should be deported to either a country of origin (given we won't know where that is) or back to France.
You are so misguided and deluded if you think we can accommodate everyone that makes it to these shores. It should be the strongest message yet. If you pitch up in the UK without permission or travel documents you wil NOT in any circumstances be allowed to stay.
... then we can move on to those that stay illegally by overstaying their visas.
Like I said I would take refuge and value the safety of me and my family.... Then I would be looking for a legitimate means of travel to my preferred destination. Why on earth wouldn't you? It makes total sense when compared to risking your life.Usual simple question. If you lived in the first safe country where an African or Asian refugee might land, would you think they should all stay there or would you rather they disperse?
So if it is that bad..... Why the UK? Why not the first country they happen on? If it is so bad? I genuinely do not get it. Why risk your life when it is not necessary? Get to safety and settle, then maybe when you have the means to do so consider trying to come to the UK. The fact they do ont do this and the majority are fit young men leads me to be sceptical.
If you are in real danger and fleeing for your life then you would take anything rather than be selective.
Okay.... accepted in part. But what is the motivation of the thousands who do come across in a boat? I half accept the speaking English bit but as I understand it many of those that do come over on boats do not speak English (or at least claim not to).Most do settle elsewhere as I have already pointed out. Reasons for the UK are usually family, they speak English, cultural ties (legacy of Empire). The latter can be seen with Chinese nationals from Hong Kong where around 150,000 have settled since 2021 under a safe passage scheme - this was set up by Johnson and was one of the few decent things he did. This has nothing to do with small boats, but demonstrates how the asylum process can work if done properly. Contrast this with our abandonment of Afghans who assisted the British with a promise that they would be looked after if we withdrew.
If then turned down deal with them crossing on a boa.......Allow asylum seekers to apply for asylum at a UK Embassy abroad. Hear their application and then make a decision. If granted allow them to enter the country in a civilised manner .......
If then turned down deal with them crossing on a boa.......
Erm.........
It’s the same debate with the same people repeated ad nauseam.Yep.... legally we can then either turn the boats back or deport to their country of origin .
Why don't you start by defining the solution?It’s the same debate with the same people repeated ad nauseam.
It’s futile to keep having it. These people want the outrage, not the solution.
It’s been done to death. As I say, it’s futile debating with the same posters repeatedly. Life’s too short.Why don't you start by defining the solution?
If these make the effort and get here should they by default allowed to stay or not?
Fair enough I agree but what you describe is a two way street.It’s been done to death. As I say, it’s futile debating with the same posters repeatedly. Life’s too short.
It can be stopped overnight, but requires a compromise where they can be processed before they have to make that journey.Fair enough I agree but what you describe is a two way street.
In all sincerity are you able to give your high level idealistic overview about what the solution is for people who come here in boats. It helps me to understand your issue, so that I and others might get behind it or constructively oppose it.
In 2024 there were 37,000 and in 2022 there were 46,000. What should we do with there people. That is over 100 people per day constant.
thanks..... so you have no solution for the hundred that will pitch up today and tomorrow?It can be stopped overnight, but requires a compromise where they can be processed before they have to make that journey.
If that solution is off the table, then the boat crossings will never be stopped unless we either rejoin the EU or recreate the Dublin agreement outside of the EU.
Everything else surrounding this never ending rage baiting is just performative noise.