Priti Vacant has a plan, a deal with migrants plan.

BobKowalski said:
The attraction of the UK will be family and existing community ties. Language will be a factor but most refugees do not come to the UK. Last year Germany accepted 128k, Spain 124k, France 90k. We had 30k applications and not all are accepted. The UK barely makes the top twenty of European countries for refugees when adjusted for size of population.

And yes this all hot air because hot air is all we have left. Without the agreement of other countries we are reduced to dreaming up increasingly bizarre and desperate solutions. See also giant wave machines to repel dinghies and the Clandestine Channel Threat Commander shaking his fist at the sea on the beaches of Dover.
Click to expand...


Unsurprisingly .... Labour controlled councils in the UK house and resettle 4 x the number of asylum immigrants than Tory councils do. (source BBC News)

But of course Tories aren't racist are they?
 
BobKowalski said:
A UK border force vessel entering French waters with the intention of dumping people illegally on French soil would be considered an aggressive act. Likely the ship would be impounded and the crew arrested.

UK official vessels can’t just swan into another country’s territorial waters and do what they like. The world doesn’t work that way.
Click to expand...

Its funny how people pick and choose what is illegal, or not, depending on their point of view.... is not the intention to sneak into Britain itself illegal? Could doing so during a massive global pandemic not also be viewed as an 'aggressive act'?

NPBlue said:
No, it doesn't, and we can't ignore the fact we are members of the United Nations and there are clearly written obligations regarding the treatment of immigrants arriving on our shores we have agreed to abide by. We are currently observing those obligations.

Priti Patel can try and appease the ignorant all she likes with her populist crap appealing to the 'get the Royal Navy to shoot them out of the water' elderly readers of the Daily Mail and Express, but there is nothing we can realistically do to stop them coming here, and we have legal and internationally binding agreements to abide by.
Click to expand...

As I have said, during unprecedented times 'emergency powers' can be invoked to override existing laws - I consider the pandemic to be that and if the government had had any backbone, so would they.
 
patrickkinney said:
Why has the UK tiptoed forward over the last 2 summers? instead of taking positive action which could actually have saved live in the long run, by decreasing the number of unsafe journeys that are attempted - especially as the weather will most likely be turning soon.
Click to expand...
Australia don't 'push back' boats. Their detention centres may well be appalling but we are going to attempt to make a dangerous crossing even more dangerous. To say anything different is rubbish.
 
patrickkinney said:
Its funny how people pick and choose what is illegal, or not, depending on their point of view.... is not the intention to sneak into Britain itself illegal? Could doing so during a massive global pandemic not also be viewed as an 'aggressive act'?



As I have said, during unprecedented times 'emergency powers' can be invoked to override existing laws - I consider the pandemic to be that and if the government had had any backbone, so would they.
Click to expand...


There is no 'legal' route to claim asylum in the UK .... You have to arrive in our waters / on our shores before you can. If you are in a position to apply for a visa to enter the UK and state that the purpose of the journey is to claim asylum then the visa will not be granted. If you lie on the visa and then apply for asylum when you get here you will not be granted asylum because lying on your application is reason for asylum to be denied.

The UK does not accept asylum applications at Embassies or Consulates abroad (unlike the majority of signatories to the UN Refugee Convention of 1951) which is why you get people crossing the channel in nothing more than kids toys or clinging to the underside of lorries.

What the Tories propose is in breach of both the above Refugee Convention 1951 and the 'Laws of the sea' ..... as we are a nation of laws you would expect that the Tories (unhappy with the way both UN Conventions are currently working) would be lobbying the United Nations for changes .... but they're not are they? Instead they bring out this dead cat every time they want to bury some other bad news , wind up their racist supporters and fill the Newspaper headlines with other stories.

( Australia is often quoted as an example as to how to deal with 'boat people' however the difference is that you can apply for asylum in Australia at an embassy / consulate abroad. The assumption is therefore that if you are attempting to land in Australia then you are not an asylum seeker but an economic migrant and as such can be processed in their detention centres )
 
patrickkinney said:
Its funny how people pick and choose what is illegal, or not, depending on their point of view.... is not the intention to sneak into Britain itself illegal? Could doing so during a massive global pandemic not also be viewed as an 'aggressive act'?



As I have said, during unprecedented times 'emergency powers' can be invoked to override existing laws - I consider the pandemic to be that and if the government had had any backbone, so would they.
Click to expand...

No. It is not illegal to enter a country to claim asylum. How you enter the country does not impact on that legality. You are conflating refugees and asylum seekers with economic migration.

UK official vessels entering another country’s sovereign waters to engage in illegal acts would be considered a hostile act.

Boat push back is not new and it has been tried before and it leads to people dying. That is the policy. To deter by killing. If people want a policy that involves killing people then just say so. We already have an asylum policy that eliminates safe and legal routes, and encourages illegal routes so we are clearly not bothered by people dying, although we pretend otherwise.
 
patrickkinney said:
I do have one solution: I also heard on the media this week that one big pull factor attracting migrants from France to the UK is that we speak English so therefore, everyone here should learn French before next spring - problème résolu!
Click to expand...
Good moaning, monsewer. I completely agru with you.
We could then piss the problem back to the Fronch.
 
BobKowalski said:
UK official vessels entering another country’s sovereign waters to engage in illegal acts would be considered a hostile act.
Click to expand...

"This, is a huge test for Priti Patel. And there’s no hiding place. With or without French cooperation, she’s got to stop those crossings. If a bit of Anglo-French argy-bargy is the cost, it’s a price worth paying."

which is from this comment piece:

www.telegraph.co.uk

The French want us to pay for Europe's disastrous immigration policies. It's time to take control

Let’s trust that the government’s new Nationality and Borders Bill isn’t a sheep in wolf’s clothing
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

I post the full txt as it is behind a paywall but still worth a read, it is a good summary of where things are at (I know some people here will see the source and dismiss it out-of-hand, just like those refusing to watch GB News cos its GB News, but sometimes it is good to see all sides of an argument).

"Finally, the government is taking action. Finally, after months, years even, of hand-wringing, Priti Patel has told the Border Force to intercept boats and send them back to France – a country to which we’re giving £54m to stop all this happening in the first place. But what do we get from the French? Intransigence. Belligerence. A refusal to cooperate. It breaks international law, they say. It’s dangerous, they tell us. It’s blackmail. Well, merci beaucoup.

This French position makes no sense. There’s precedent for turning boats back – it’s been carried out by Greek, Australian and other jurisdictions – and the action will only be considered when it’s safe.

As for blackmail. Well, British taxpayers, just a couple of days after a massive national insurance hike, have a right to ask where our investment in the French authorities is going. We’re handing that cash to the French so that they can put more manpower into preventing illegal crossings, yet crossings are at a record high. So what’s going on?

In any case, what matters is not the raw number of boats pointed back towards Calais. It’s the message it sends: if you try to cross the channel illegally, treacherously, you’ll be wasting your money, and back where you started.

Do the French suggest we just carry on as we are? Perhaps that would suit them, shifting a problem to those bothersome Brexit Brits. Michel Barnier’s populist and hypocritical anti-immigrant pitch to be the Republicans’ Presidential candidate shows that immigration is a huge electoral issue in France. It suits them to keep the flow of channel migrants motoring north.

And it’s working. Just this week, 1,500 people have made illegal crossings and been welcomed into Britain. So far this year, more than 14,000 have made it to our shores – far more than the last two years put together. No wonder Kent’s system for dealing with it all is at breaking point. No wonder estimates show there are a million illegal immigrants already living in the UK. And let’s just remind ourselves that channel migrants are coming here from France, a perfectly safe country.

Meanwhile, the human cost of these journeys is appalling. Several hundred migrants, including children, have drowned over the last two decades. Yet, so long as they think there’s a good chance they’ll get to Britain, and be allowed to stay, they’ll keep on coming. And, tragically, dying. Sending migrants in dinghies across the channel is like sending children to run across a motorway – a deadly, watery version of Russian roulette within easy viewing of the White Cliffs.

So let’s trust that the government’s new Nationality and Borders Bill isn’t a sheep in wolf’s clothing. In principle, it will make it easier to remove people with no right to be here, with tougher penalties for illegal entry. It will allow for asylum claims to be processed outside the UK, leading eventually to all applications being processed offshore. Such a process must be firm, speedy and just. That, more than anything, will crush the smugglers.

Critics, of course, say the Bill is heartless. I’d ask them how heartless it is to continue with a system that’s killed hundreds of people while thumbing its nose at other asylum seekers who patiently play by the rules and pursue the legal route. Every drowned migrant is blood on the hands of the British and French authorities and of anyone else who tacitly encourages illegal entry.

This, then, is a huge test for Priti Patel. And there’s no hiding place. With or without French cooperation, she’s got to stop those crossings. If a bit of Anglo-French argy-bargy is the cost, it’s a price worth paying."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.