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

[Octavian]

Maybe they dont speak French, but speak English...easier to integrate?

Maybe they already have family here?

I think the family here is a more likely reason but then that can’t account for all surely.

 

[metalblue]

Well yeah but people have their own biases regarding the situation. I’m more interested in trying to find out why this is happening and what a logical solution is, as there will always be one but I just can’t find it. It’s obvious the current set up isn’t working but then if we processed them in Calais and they didn’t meet the criteria, they’d be trying to cross anyway and we’re in the same situation. As a stop gap the navy need to be called to rescue missions.

There is no simple answer to your question. It needs a global response and we need a global agreement. The current system is fit for limited applications only, not where war displaces huge numbers of people.

To my mind we need:

1. People to be able to apply for asylum at embassies around the world. Very few countries allow this and the UK is no different.

2. There should be a common standard agreed on criteria for being granted asylum to support the process. So anyone seeking asylum will have as likely chance of successful application irrespective of which country they apply to.

3. Countries need to recognise a successful application for asylum in one country who is signed up to the “global charter” as being successful in their own. We can then use equitable distribution of asylum seekers who have been successful- keeping in mind an overriding principle of keeping families together or reuniting them. Asylum seekers should be asked to pick their top 3/5 destinations and we try to meet their wishes.

Chances of this happening globally are probably about zero. I guess the US would look at it and say it’s a “Europe” problem but they have their own issues. And we need action on regional individual solutions - along similar lines above; perhaps the UK and France/EU can take some global leadership on this.

Additionally we need to know more data. One thing that did occur to me is how many asylum seekers risking their lives to cross the channel have had an application turned down by the French or other EU states? Would be interesting to see if they transverse Europe looking for asylum and end up on the northern french coast as a case of last resort or they head straight for the UK. If we understand the problem better we will better solutions.

 

[Octavian]

There is no simple answer to your question. It needs a global response and we need a global agreement. The current system is fit for limited applications only, not where war displaces huge numbers of people.

To my mind we need:

1. People to be able to apply for asylum at embassies around the world. Very few countries allow this and the UK is no different.

2. There should be a common standard agreed on criteria for being granted asylum to support the process. So anyone seeking asylum will have as likely chance of successful application irrespective of which country they apply to.

3. Countries need to recognise a successful application for asylum in one country who is signed up to the “global charter” as being successful in their own. We can then use equitable distribution of asylum seekers who have been successful- keeping in mind an overriding principle of keeping families together or reuniting them. Asylum seekers should be asked to pick their top 3/5 destinations and we try to meet their wishes.

Chances of this happening globally are probably about zero. I guess the US would look at it and say it’s a “Europe” problem but they have their own issues. And we need action on regional individual solutions - along similar lines above; perhaps the UK and France/EU can take some global leadership on this.

Additionally we need to know more data. One thing that did occur to me is how many asylum seekers risking their lives to cross the channel have had an application turned down by the French or other EU states? Would be interesting to see if they transverse Europe looking for asylum and end up on the northern french coast as a case of last resort or they head straight for the UK. If we understand the problem better we will better solutions.

That’s the ideal but it’ll never happen sadly as you’ve said.

 

[ballbag]

Why would they wanna come over here? Its full of cunts and ran by bigger cunts.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

But aren't they paying people traffickers hundreds of £'s? I read some traffickers are making tens of thousands per crossing. A flight from Paris to London costs what, £100 at best?

I'm not trying to be funny, I just don't understand why people are taking such risks to travel from a relatively safer place to come to here where as we keep hearing it's so apparently anti-immigrant etc.

I know some are coming to meet family but again there's a visa that allows family members to come here no problem.

It doesn't matter how much money you've got. If you don't get a visa, they won't let you on the plane. And they won't give you a visa without assurances that you aren't looking to stay in a country permanently. That involves getting bank statements, employment contracts, and all sorts of other documentation. An asylum seeker can't provide proof that they're going to return to their country after their holiday, because they aren't. They've quit their job. They've likely taken all of their savings out of the bank account. Their government are likely to be uncooperative with any attempts to get official documentation.

If they apply from their home country, it may involve making an appointment at the British embassy and trying to convince them in an interview that they're going on holiday, coincidentally at a time when half of the country are fleeing. And that's if there even is a British embassy, because often when a country gets into such a state that loads of people flee, the first thing that happens is that diplomatic staff are pulled out, like we saw in Afghanistan. Syria has no British embassy, for example. All staff have been removed from the embassy in Yemen. And even if you managed all of that, you'd then have to exit through local customs, who may not be particularly keen on allowing people to leave the country. If you were a female judge in Afghanistan and wanted to flee, would you want to hand over your passport to customs officials to do a check on you before you get on a plane? I wouldn't. If you make it to France and try to get an appointment at the British embassy in Paris, they'll ask you for the same evidence plus proof that you're legally in France. Both are impossible to get, so you're not getting on a plane.

 

[Blue Mist]

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.

Eh ?

 

[I'm With Stupid]

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

The entire rest of the presentation is based entirely on that premise in the first line. So yes, I agree with the next 6 1/5 minutes that it would be an extremely stupid way of attempting to deal with poverty. But given that I've never heard anyone make that argument, I don't see it as in any way insightful.

This is a thread about asylum seekers, and the argument for helping asylum seekers isn't that it helps prevent poverty. I'm also fairly sure that the vast majority of asylum seekers and people generally would prefer to see their own country improve rather than having to leave everything they know to go to a strange land. But that's not a luxury you have when your house is being bombed or your life is being threatened because you were a judge who imprisoned the new regime's friends.

 

[Phil1]

Eh ?

It's straight forward. You're one of the Tories biggest cheerleaders on here even though they constantly, day after day show themselves up as being uncaring, selfish cunts only looking after their own interests.
Complaining that BM posters (apart from yourself and a handful of others) spend their time pointing out how bad the government are seems a bit rich when they're just pointing out the truth.
This current tragedy isn't all on the government and there's several factors to consider but there's no doubts the government are not doing all they can to help the situation improve.

 

[meltonblue]

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

We’re not just talking about who we accept and who we don’t though, that’s the change in narrative I was referring to. We’re talking about how do stop people from putting their lives at such levels of danger. Who we accept and how we decide to do it is one element of it, but it needs to be considered as part of the whole picture, such as how do we establish safer methods of passage, how do we make resettlement schemes fit for purpose, how do we start working more collaboratively with other countries and get everyone thinking about this in the first instance as a humanitarian crisis.

All of those things need to be addressed.

 

[west didsblue]

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.

Yep. We've lined ourselves up for having the piss taken out of us by the French.

Great work.