Channel deaths | Four confirmed dead after migrant boat tragically capsizes (p 41)

[Blue Mist]

Its against the Refugee Convention of 1951 to disrupt the safe passage of an asylum seeker .... but what do Tories care about laws?

What !!!!!! Seriously ?
Disrupt the safe passage, they are in France.

 

[west didsblue]

This tradgedy is entirely the French authorities fault, The migrants leave their shores, where the UK has no juristriction. And the French are happy to let these people cross as they arnt in their country. Plenty of film footage of Gendarmes watching people leave France. They could also easily stop people buying these big dingies and could easily catch the smuggling gangs with easy undercover police operation. But they arnt interested.

It might well be but if there was a convention that we could sign up to that regulates where asylum seekers should go in Europe we might be able to legally force the French to take appropriate responsibility.

The thing that shall not be mentioned that came into force at the beginning of the year is the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

No but they can apply for political asylum in any European country. If granted they can then apply to come here. The point being that if they are genuinely fleeing an oppresive regime any European country is a safe place.

They can, but they have chosen to come here.

The myth that they have to claim asylum in the first country they get to has been debunked ages ago.

Do you feel that way to offset any feelings you might have had for them drowning in a freezing sea?

Its a question asked every other page on here and has been answered numerous times. What made you ask the question to me again?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

So what do you suggest we do ?
Who do we accept and how do we send back those we decide are not genuine ?

Process their application before they arrive.

Anyone then deciding to cross the channel illegally could be sent back straight away.

Although, having left the EU, I’m not sure France would need to accept them back now.

 

[abu13]

First line: "Some people say that mass immigration into the United States can help reduce world poverty."

Who has ever said that?

So you don't agree with the comment in the first line, what about the next 6 1/2 minutes ?

 

[mexico1970]

Process their application before they arrive.

Anyone then deciding to cross the channel illegally could be sent back straight away.

Although, having left the EU, I’m not sure France would need to accept them back now.

This is the only way forward, mechanisms need to be put in place to see that this happens. We have to accept that people will come and we have to make sure that the ones in need get here with as little fuss as possible.

We have to disregard the open border fringe opinions and we also have to disregard the people who don't want any jonny foreigners here.

First thing on the agenda is identity, if an applicant doesn't want to state who they are then they don't get in, losing paperwork is fine if a journey has been made where paperwork can single you out, but once in Europe you have to let authorities know who you are before any kind of process takes place.

And there has to be a limit, we can't just say hay ho let anyone come, they have to be in genuine risk.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

It might well be but if there was a convention that we could sign up to that regulates where asylum seekers should go in Europe we might be able to legally force the French to take appropriate responsibility.

The thing that shall not be mentioned that came into force at the beginning of the year is the gift that keeps on giving.

That thing that cannot be mentioned that sold itself as taking back control of our borders with billboard images of brown skinned refugees/migrants, you mean? Let's not mention it.

 

[Blue Mist]

Process their application before they arrive.

Anyone then deciding to cross the channel illegally could be sent back straight away.

Although, having left the EU, I’m not sure France would need to accept them back now.

What pisses me off about bm threads in off top is the posts are usually political posturing, usually blaming the tories. There is no discussion and so little point in them posting but they do. I am not having a go at you and I agree with your post. It is very sad that those people died a horrible death but how posters can blame the govt I don't know.

 

[Phil1]

What pisses me off about bm threads in off top is the posts are usually political posturing, usually blaming the tories. There is no discussion and so little point in them posting but they do. I am not having a go at you and I agree with your post. It is very sad that those people died a horrible death but how posters can blame the govt I don't know.

Yet you manage to defend them almost every time even though they are a shower of shit who spend the majority of their time making the UK a laughing stock.
It's a funny old world.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

What pisses me off about bm threads in off top is the posts are usually political posturing, usually blaming the tories. There is no discussion and so little point in them posting but they do. I am not having a go at you and I agree with your post. It is very sad that those people died a horrible death but how posters can blame the govt I don't know.

What can be blamed on them is their inactivity over the past 11 years (and beyond).

This is an ongoing problem that needs sorting out to the best of our ability to minimise the number of people trying to cross the channel.

It was entwined in the Brexit debate and what Brexit has done is allow France to say “we don’t want them back and there is no agreement in place making us take them back”.

If we processed their applications before they arrived, with proper(but not OTT) eligibility, we would probably minimise these crossings as much as is possible and properly vet who is coming in.