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

[give it to gordon]

BBC reported yesterday that the French had broken up 40 networks this year.

Ok my mistake :/

 

[inbetween]

Only way to stop people trying to cross is to make it pointless these craft can be seen from satellite and intercepted if they were then returned to France every time (would need agreement) there would be no point trying. Strongly believe we should take in from the camps we're application can be assessed and approved.

This isn't going to work because currently most applications would be denied. Anyone not from a war torn type country will dump identification so it's impossible to work out where they came from. If you don't know their origin then you can't prove that they came from a safe country which strengthens an asylum case. Even then I'm not sure how successful an asylum case will be where the applicant has zero documentation.

An asylum case lodged in France will be even weaker because it would still require the same documentation but the wait will likely be longer because the applicant isn't in the UK. There also isn't any support for them in France whilst waiting so they'll likely attempt the boat journey anyway.

Either way we can't just unilaterally stick a border post in Calais, this requires a serious and sensible agreement with the French because it's their problem as much as ours.

 

[mexico1970]

Let's be honest the French are doing very little, this needs sorting out.

 

[hilts]

Of course they are. A bit of anti-rosbif rhetoric works as well at home for them as anti-frog rhetoric works here. But we've made it fucking easy for them with recent decisions.

None of this helps solve the problem which needs intelligence, co-operation and a move away from point scoring but we're not going to get that with the bumbling fool Johnson and a home secretary who is on record for saying she wanted to criminalise the rescue of drowning people. I suspect the same applies to the French government but I don't pretend to know a lot about French domestic politics.

In the cold light of day, if we had large numbers of illegals in this country who were doing their best to leave the country and become someone else's problem would we be going to a lot of effort to stop them? Particularly when the country they want to go to has withdrawn from the treaty that sets out the rules for this. That's what we're asking the French to do.

Also the migrants aren't stupid. The know the UK is no longer part of any agreements so if they make it here they're not being sent back to France. That's encouraging more to risk it as is borne out by the stats.

I agree with all that but the question is if we, the French and other countries in general can't or more likely won't have a cohesive plan then we are back to square one.

 

[BobKowalski]

Uk no longer welcome at meeting to discuss issue

France cancels meeting with UK about migrant crossings over Boris Johnson's letter

The prime minister's letter, which he shared on Twitter, said Paris needed to accept a deal to return migrants coming over the Channel to France.

news.sky.com

The issue is too important for silly rows on either side, but it is a farce. We now want a return policy/treaty on immigrants/refugees that we previously walked away from, and keep telling France to do more on a border that they in effect manage on our behalf after leaving the EU to take back control of said border.

Posturing at the French will achieve nothing and the French getting the hump is equally pointless.

 

[metalblue]

They want to come to the UK for family or language reasons. They are playing the system and because there are no formal arrangements between ourselves and the EU they've got a better chance of getting away with it.

You’ve neatly sidestepped the question. They either have a legitimate asylum claim or they don’t. Arguing that they are “playing the system” or trying to “get away with it” says they don’t, worse it says they don’t and they know it.

 

[ganganvince]

The issue is too important for silly rows on either side, but it is a farce. We now want a return policy/treaty on immigrants/refugees that we previously walked away from, and keep telling France to do more on a border that they in effect manage on our behalf after leaving the EU to take back control of said border.

Posturing at the French will achieve nothing and the French getting the hump is equally pointless.

Shouldn't be sides though these people have travelled through Europe to get to France claims should be dealt with much earlier in that journey with the successful applicants being assigned a final destination (preference taken into account) to fill an agreed quota.

 

[BobKowalski]

Shouldn't be sides though these people have travelled through Europe to get to France claims should be dealt with much earlier in that journey with the successful applicants being assigned a final destination (preference taken into account) to fill an agreed quota.

Yes. And the people stuck in Calais are the ones wanting to come to the UK. Otherwise they would have stayed in other countries as the vast majority do. And we pay the French to manage the issue on our behalf in Calais and since many applicants will be rejected they then risk the crossing, knowing that once in the UK we cannot return them and that whilst the Govt may have rejected their application, there is a good chance it will be overturned in the courts because the Govt grounds for rejection are often illegal.

 

[BobKowalski]

You’ve neatly sidestepped the question. They either have a legitimate asylum claim or they don’t. Arguing that they are “playing the system” or trying to “get away with it” says they don’t, worse it says they don’t and they know it.

Having a legitimate asylum claim is little guarantee of the Govt accepting that claim. Many rejected asylum claims are appealed and overturned - think the figure is around 70% in the courts.

The key for the people trying to get here, is to first, actually get here, as once here they cannot be automatically returned and instead go through the system with a high chance of success.

 

[metalblue]

Shouldn't be sides though these people have travelled through Europe to get to France claims should be dealt with much earlier in that journey with the successful applicants being assigned a final destination (preference taken into account) to fill an agreed quota.

How do we know they haven’t already applied and been denied? And see the UK as the next step to try and delay any attempts to return them to their home country having already exhausted the appeals process in France (or wherever).

But what can the UK actually do unilaterally?

We can soften our asylum criteria to be more forgiving than that of EU members; the risk here is that the EU members harden theirs leaving the UK as point of destination for all asylum seekers. So there is zero chance it will happen. We won’t blink first.

We can accept applications at embassies/consulates - I think this is something we should do anyway. No risks in doing so but I’m not sure how much it will solve the issue.

What else? I can’t think of anything.

What we really need, at the minimum, is a European agreement on application criteria and process, a global one would be ideal but I suppose for us it’s only really Europe that directly affects us and is probably something achievable. The UK should try and take the lead here and push for it forcefully.