What has the UK become?

blueinsa said:
Don’t get into illegal traffickers boats is the answer.
Click to expand...

Except they do. 300,000 annually and that is just into the EU.

So, not really an answer is it?

Now that we have established they are not listening to you, what is the deterrent to stop it happening? And, if there is no deterrent, what is your solution?
 
inbetween said:
The risk of travelling across the channel in a dinghy is the deterrent. Some choose to take that risk but many don't so there is already a deterrent. I actually can't really understand the emotive aspect because the migrants are not fleeing bombs or war, they're fleeing France and Europe which is actually quite a nice place.

If you read this thread and the views on the UK then you wonder why the hell anybody would bother to come here.

Clearly these people are being sold a life in the UK by criminal gangs who want them to take risks because of the money involved. People in Calais have otherwise been jumping into the back of lorries bound for the UK for years, it's nothing new and we still haven't built a border processing centre in France to stop them. Perhaps attacking the criminal gangs facilitating the risky crossing would be a good start instead?

Losing freedom of movement is the reason why we have skill shortages and we should of tried to retain that where possible but we haven't so here we are.
Click to expand...

With 300,000 risking their lives annually in the Med or in the Channel, it‘s not proving that effective, and if as you correctly say, some are deterred, then what does that tell you about the level of desperation that drives some to discount the risk?

In summary, the conclusion is that there is no deterrent bigger than the risk they willingly take, and by not providing safe routes we are complicit in that risk.
 
BobKowalski said:
Except they do. 300,000 annually and that is just into the EU.

So, not really an answer is it?

Now that we have established they are not listening to you, what is the deterrent to stop it happening? And, if there is no deterrent, what is your solution?
Click to expand...
To me we should just increase the speed of processing applications to reduce housing costs and then align ourselves to the rest of Europe and accept that there is going to be some level of people making crossings at their own risk. They do not need to take that risk because France is a safe country so there is no reason to act beyond our legal obligations.

If France is not able to easily patrol its shores and the rest of Europe is not willing to stop arrivals coming into Europe and allows people to freely travel across Europe then what hope have we or they got?

Going off your point of view why are you arguing to put a border post in France? Why don't we open them up in Afghanistan, Iran and every other troubled country in the world? We can then pay tons more of our money to fly them here too.
 
inbetween said:
A legitimate asylum seeker is somebody who is in the UK and has claimed asylum so legally speaking from the UK pov there cannot be a legitimate asylum seeker who is outside of the UK. A border post in France would therefore actually require us to effectively annex a portion of France (like an embassy) unless we're going to accept applications from anyone anywhere.

I am a UK citizen and I am not a legitimate citizen of the USA for example. I have no claim to become a US citizen unless I go through the process of becoming one. If I decided to take a risk to cross the Atlantic in a boat to enter the US then would you say that the US should build a border post in the UK to stop it and help me? It's a stupid suggestion.

France itself actually does not recognise those people as legitimate asylum seekers either even though they're physically in France. This because they have not claimed asylum in France.

Technically they're actually illegal immigrants until an asylum claim is made. Most countries in Europe however don't enforce their own laws or borders to stop this movement. Instead they allow the problem to get passed on to the end country which in some cases ends up being the UK.
Click to expand...

Germany is the principal destination for roughly a third of all asylum seekers. I don’t think the UK makes the top ten. Happy to be fact checked on that if someone has info to the contrary.

As for the US. I would suggest applying for a green card from the US Consulate :)
 
inbetween said:
To me we should just increase the speed of processing applications to reduce housing costs and then align ourselves to the rest of Europe and accept that there is going to be some level of people making crossings at their own risk. They do not need to take that risk because France is a safe country so there is no reason to act beyond our legal obligations.

If France is not able to easily patrol its shores and the rest of Europe is not willing to stop arrivals coming into Europe and allows people to freely travel across Europe then what hope have we or they got?

Going off your point of view why are you arguing to put a border post in France? Why don't we open them up in Afghanistan, Iran and every other troubled country in the world? We can then pay tons more of our money to fly them here too.
Click to expand...

The EU does try and protect its external border. Frontex has been criticised for siding with Greek authorities in illegal ‘push back’ and potential deaths. Italy passed laws allowing prosecution of ship captains rescuing people. France does patrol and stop crossings, but there is no way to stop or deter all crossings either in the Med or here.

Overseas processing has been floated but no agreement reached in the EU. Some countries are against it, some claim it falls foul of EU law. I would argue for a processing centre in France and providing safe passage to those that are successful. It will save some lives. Those that fail may still try though, but I would build in a return policy with the French/EU for those that fail to reduce the incentive for failed applicants to risk it.

In return the UK would take part in the EU asylum scheme and take our share of asylum seekers.
 
BobKowalski said:
Germany is the principal destination for roughly a third of all asylum seekers. I don’t think the UK makes the top ten. Happy to be fact checked on that if someone has info to the contrary.

As for the US. I would suggest applying for a green card from the US Consulate :)
Click to expand...
Germany is effectively landlocked and given the porous borders in Europe they basically didn't have much choice. Merkel essentially said that they will accept everyone and the result is Germany swelled its population by millions over just a few years. Whether that decision was a good or bad thing for Germany is something for Germans to decide.

By the way, if you put a border post in France then doesn't that create a huge incentive for traffickers to sell more dangerous trips across the Mediterranean to bring people to France so that they can claim asylum here? 10x more people have died crossing the Mediterranean versus the Channel.
 
We do have a few islands nicely located just away from the pretty port of St Malo. Maybe we should use those as our own "Ellis Island". After all they still dont pay and capital gains tax there, even though WW2 ended nearly 80yrs ago.
 
domalino said:
It's not an effective deterrent if (a) it doesn't deter a significant % of people and (b) it means legitimate asylum seekers have to risk their lives alongside the people we're trying to deter.
Click to expand...

We have no idea how many would come here if the option was easier than risking your own and your families life.

So to say its not a deterrent is just a biased guess on your part
 
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.