Channel refugees

[Rockettvr]

Hi all
Apologies if there is a thread on this elsewhere please redirect me if there is
Lots in the news at the moment regarding the asylum seekers crossing the channel in small leaky boats especially as they’re coming in greater numbers during the warm weather
Theres lots of ‘debate’ (ie.shouting)around the issue at work from “they take our jobs/houses sink the boats and send them back” to “we should send chartered ferries to France to get them here safely” - and I’m struggling to form an opinion as I find myself totally uninformed about the whole asylum seeker/refugee system (as I believe most of the people I work with are )
So a couple of questions (they’ll probably be more) to start
As I understand it the asylum seekers are supposed to register in the first country of safety they reach. What is the process after that ? Do the refugees get to choose where they eventually end up or is it a case of pot luck ??
What is the draw of coming to the uk ???
Why do they cross several safe European countries and then allegedly pay thousands of pounds to risk sitting in a leaky dinghy across the worlds busiest shipping lanes to get here ?
As I understand on arrival they are given basic accommodation and a small living allowance while their claim is processed then what ???
I understand that this is an emotive issue for many people so try to stick to facts not opinion please - let’s not start a shouting match

[anonymous-user]

Rockettvr said:

Hi all
Apologies if there is a thread on this elsewhere please redirect me if there is
Lots in the news at the moment regarding the asylum seekers crossing the channel in small leaky boats especially as they’re coming in greater numbers during the warm weather
Theres lots of ‘debate’ (ie.shouting)around the issue at work from “they take our jobs/houses sink the boats and send them back” to “we should send chartered ferries to France to get them here safely” - and I’m struggling to form an opinion as I find myself totally uninformed about the whole asylum seeker/refugee system (as I believe most of the people I work with are )

So a couple of questions (they’ll probably be more) to start
As I understand it the asylum seekers are supposed to register in the first country of safety they reach. What is the process after that ? Do the refugees get to choose where they eventually end up or is it a case of pot luck ??

there is no rule, law, agreement that states refugees must register in a “first country of safety”, this is Daily Mail bullst link

Rockettvr said:

What is the draw of coming to the uk ???

People trafficking, they owe someone a lot of money to get here. People assume the migrants have “paid” to cross, they haven’t. Often they have incurred debt, there’s a subtle difference I’m sure you appreciate. Now they are forced to travel to a destination or face consequences. Why is it always young men crossing? Because the wives and families are being held as collateral back home. Young men are also good at working and a young man with no ties can work harder without distractions. There are many places from hand car washes to building sites where these people can disappear.

Rockettvr said:

Why do they cross several safe European countries and then allegedly pay thousands of pounds to risk sitting in a leaky dinghy across the worlds busiest shipping lanes to get here ?

As above, they are trying to get here to meet a contact, start work and help their wider situation

Rockettvr said:

As I understand on arrival they are given basic accommodation and a small living allowance while their claim is processed then what ???

The claim is either processed in their favour or not. It’s complex and the UK Border Force and Home Office are working to gather evidence on the people trafficking side of things, hence immediately turning them round is both inhumane and doesn’t help the situation. The need to gather information and evidence is hugely more important than appeasing some far right loons.

The last thing anyone wants is for the migrants claim to be accepted but they seek out their contact, start working illegally and enter the labour black market as this just perpetuates the trafficking cycle. Be under no doubt, people are making a lot of money from this exploitation. Of course not all migrants fit this description/scenario but many do.I appreciate this all sounds woke, lefty, liberal veganist but it’s a reality.

Flip it the other way, there is no work here, you oppose the government and have no prospects but I have a “proposition” for you, also I have a gun to your families head. I have sold you to a mate in Syria, you have a few weeks to get there, I’ve kindly arranged some help on the way for which you can pay me later. I have sold your mates too so you are all travelling together. If you make it, you’re working for my mate, the first two years are paying off your debt, then you can possibly start sending a tiny bit home…. Your family are safe, don’t worry….. for now.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 24th July 09:48

[pequod]

Rockettvr said:

Hi all
Apologies if there is a thread on this elsewhere please redirect me if there is
Lots in the news at the moment regarding the asylum seekers crossing the channel in small leaky boats especially as they’re coming in greater numbers during the warm weather
Theres lots of ‘debate’ (ie.shouting)around the issue at work from “they take our jobs/houses sink the boats and send them back” to “we should send chartered ferries to France to get them here safely” - and I’m struggling to form an opinion as I find myself totally uninformed about the whole asylum seeker/refugee system (as I believe most of the people I work with are )
So a couple of questions (they’ll probably be more) to start
As I understand it the asylum seekers are supposed to register in the first country of safety they reach. What is the process after that ? Do the refugees get to choose where they eventually end up or is it a case of pot luck ??
What is the draw of coming to the uk ???
Why do they cross several safe European countries and then allegedly pay thousands of pounds to risk sitting in a leaky dinghy across the worlds busiest shipping lanes to get here ?
As I understand on arrival they are given basic accommodation and a small living allowance while their claim is processed then what ???
I understand that this is an emotive issue for many people so try to stick to facts not opinion please - let’s not start a shouting match

You have asked for 'facts' which I doubt are available, per se.

The only 'fact' available to mere mortals is, we have a growing number of people crossing in boats and by other nefarious means, who need to be dealt with on arrival. Whether these folk are genuine asylum seekers or illegal migrants is open to interpretation, and, given the numbers arriving, the system is clearly overwhelmed, possibly deliberately so?

What is a 'fact', the UNHCR Convention for Refugees is outdated and urgently needs amending to deal with 21st century migration which will only increase as the World population rises.

[Electro1980]

pablo said:

The claim is either processed in their favour or not. It’s complex and the UK Border Force and Home Office are working to gather evidence on the people trafficking side of things, hence immediately turning them round is both inhumane and doesn’t help the situation.

And the courts are struggling under the weight of growing demands and shrinking funding, meaning that even when UK Border Force and Home Office have done there is further delays, made worse by them seeming to be incapable of actually putting together cases based on facts rather than Home Office political KPIs.

[s1962a]

Given enough money and support, France could stop the boats leaving their shores in the first place. We seem too proud to ask them nicely though.

[pequod]

s1962a said:

Given enough money and support, France could stop the boats leaving their shores in the first place. We seem too proud to ask them nicely though.

Is that a fact? The OP has asked for 'facts' rather than 'opinions'....

[TCX]

Britannia,other hotel chains also, business model is for asylum, illegal immigrants,see the one round corner in Hampstead,all young men sitting outside, laughing n smoking with supposed guard,all in new sports wear,phones, jewelry,often chatting with 'friemds' who have escaped or just allowed to drift away,but why would they three squares a day,bottled water no tap water for these boys,easy life just waiting till they get into the general population

[rdjohn]

s1962a said:

Given enough money and support, France could stop the boats leaving their shores in the first place. We seem too proud to ask them nicely though.

France was being paid £1million / week to deal effectively with the problem. This happens in a fairly small geographical area that could easily be observed by drones to catch those who are making the deals.

A regulation to confiscate boats and outboards that cannot be directly traced to a long-term bonafide owner would also make a big difference.

These guys (notice that most refugees from Ukraine are women and children) don't just turn up on the shores of the channel, they have already passed through multiple safe countries, who probably grant asylum to engineers and doctors and let the rest pas their sieve for their onward journey. The ones on the shores have been attended to by the French authorities and they can see no immediate advantage to granting asylum and so are reasonably content for the traffickers to work their magic. To make them go away.

If there was a real will to stop trafficking, i feel certain it could be greatly reduced.

Biometric ID cards for everyone in the UK should be introduced. So the UK is shooting itself in its foot by failing to do so on grounds of Civil Liberties.

[M4cruiser]

Rockettvr said:

Hi all
Apologies if there is a thread on this elsewhere please redirect me if there is
Lots in the news at the moment regarding the asylum seekers crossing the channel in small leaky boats especially as they’re coming in greater numbers during the warm weather
Theres lots of ‘debate’ (ie.shouting)around the issue at work from “they take our jobs/houses sink the boats and send them back” to “we should send chartered ferries to France to get them here safely” - and I’m struggling to form an opinion as I find myself totally uninformed about the whole asylum seeker/refugee system (as I believe most of the people I work with are )
So a couple of questions (they’ll probably be more) to start
As I understand it the asylum seekers are supposed to register in the first country of safety they reach. What is the process after that ? Do the refugees get to choose where they eventually end up or is it a case of pot luck ??
What is the draw of coming to the uk ???
Why do they cross several safe European countries and then allegedly pay thousands of pounds to risk sitting in a leaky dinghy across the worlds busiest shipping lanes to get here ?
As I understand on arrival they are given basic accommodation and a small living allowance while their claim is processed then what ???
I understand that this is an emotive issue for many people so try to stick to facts not opinion please - let’s not start a shouting match

Rock, you make a very good point.
Fact: These people are not fleeing persecution. They've come from France, not Syria, or Tunisia, etc.
Does anyone think they've actually sailed those leaky boats over 1,000 miles? Of course not, they've come 23 miles from France. Why would they be persecuted in France?
They are illegal immigrants.
For clarity, I have no problem with legal immigrants, who pay for a visa and work legally. I find I like our diverse UK as a result.
But illegal immigrants are different.

[Mobile Chicane]

If the UK were to allow asylum seekers to claim at its network of overseas Embassies and Consulates, people smugglers would be out of business literally overnight.

However in answer to the question of "What's the draw?" the answer is not the UK's 'generous benefit system' - it is far from that.

The answer is English. A widely taught foreign language the world over, with lots of resources.

[M4cruiser]

I get what pablo says about the debt. But they haven't bought a ticket to England, they've bought a lottery ticket, and not every ticket wins a prize.
So if they end up in Rwanda then there may be consequences for their family hostages. May sound harsh but that's not our problem. That's the risk they took.

[Electro1980]

Mobile Chicane said:

If the UK were to allow asylum seekers to claim at its network of overseas Embassies and Consulates, people smugglers would be out of business literally overnight.

However in answer to the question of "What's the draw?" the answer is not the UK's 'generous benefit system' - it is far from that.

The answer is English. A widely taught foreign language the world over, with lots of resources.

The language and the other connections the UK has across the world thanks to the Empire and the commonwealth. Same reason France has lots of North and West Africa refugees.

[crankedup5]

TCX said:

Britannia,other hotel chains also, business model is for asylum, illegal immigrants,see the one round corner in Hampstead,all young men sitting outside, laughing n smoking with supposed guard,all in new sports wear,phones, jewelry,often chatting with 'friemds' who have escaped or just allowed to drift away,but why would they three squares a day,bottled water no tap water for these boys,easy life just waiting till they get into the general population

I spent a weekend in a Brittania hotel so that I could see for myself how the immigrants are treated.
No wonder they want to come to the U.K. Three cooked meals each day, en-suite facilities to each room, pocket money for whatever is required over and above the ‘basic offerings’. No security whatsoever to be seen.
All at U.K. tax payers expense, they are pissing themselves with laughter at our expense.

[Murph7355]

Mobile Chicane said:

If the UK were to allow asylum seekers to claim at its network of overseas Embassies and Consulates, people smugglers would be out of business literally overnight.....

I think it's something we should do (though there are likely to be logistical issues).

However, I'm not sure it alone would stop the trafficking. Those who would be unlikely to be granted asylum would be unlikely to go that route still.

People will note that 60%-70% of claimants are given asylum...but that still leaves 30%-40% who are rejected. And it also doesn't confirm how many coming in via dinghy are successful claimants either. If the %age of those is a lot lower....

[Mobile Chicane]

crankedup5 said:

TCX said:

Britannia,other hotel chains also, business model is for asylum, illegal immigrants,see the one round corner in Hampstead,all young men sitting outside, laughing n smoking with supposed guard,all in new sports wear,phones, jewelry,often chatting with 'friemds' who have escaped or just allowed to drift away,but why would they three squares a day,bottled water no tap water for these boys,easy life just waiting till they get into the general population

I spent a weekend in a Brittania hotel so that I could see for myself how the immigrants are treated.
No wonder they want to come to the U.K. Three cooked meals each day, en-suite facilities to each room, pocket money for whatever is required over and above the ‘basic offerings’. No security whatsoever to be seen.
All at U.K. tax payers expense, they are pissing themselves with laughter at our expense.

O RLY?

Have a Google for "Britannia Hotels " and see what comes up. Let's just say there aren't any in Surrey

[Mobile Chicane]

Murph7355 said:

Mobile Chicane said:

If the UK were to allow asylum seekers to claim at its network of overseas Embassies and Consulates, people smugglers would be out of business literally overnight.....

I think it's something we should do (though there are likely to be logistical issues).

However, I'm not sure it alone would stop the trafficking. Those who would be unlikely to be granted asylum would be unlikely to go that route still.

People will note that 60%-70% of claimants are given asylum...but that still leaves 30%-40% who are rejected. And it also doesn't confirm how many coming in via dinghy are successful claimants either. If the %age of those is a lot lower....

By all means if those who don't qualify by legal routes turn up, deport.

However the legal route has to be made available.

[Condi]

crankedup5 said:

I spent a weekend in a Brittania hotel so that I could see for myself how the immigrants are treated.
No wonder they want to come to the U.K. Three cooked meals each day, en-suite facilities to each room, pocket money for whatever is required over and above the ‘basic offerings’. No security whatsoever to be seen.
All at U.K. tax payers expense, they are pissing themselves with laughter at our expense.

They certainly dont get "pocket money for whatever is required", they get (from memory) about £30 a week.

Anyway, there are several threads on this already, the main arguments from one side are that the Navy should be using 15 inch guns to blast every small boat leaving the French shore to smithereens and all the people arriving are murders, thieves or economic migrants. The other side point out that the vast vast majority are deemed to have valid asylum claims, and as such are not economic migrants. The UK are also a member of the UNCHR, and could if desired leave, but the politicians don't like the optics of that. The French do actually stop just over 50% of vessels leaving their shores, although it of course far easier to blame the French than admit any responsibility lies with us.

[anonymous-user]

pequod said:

What is a 'fact', the UNHCR Convention for Refugees is outdated and urgently needs amending to deal with 21st century migration which will only increase as the World population rises.

That’s not a fact, it’s your opinion. I don’t necessarily disagree but given the current red meat being flung to the far right is Removing the UK from ECHR, it would be Brexit 2.0. We’d leave amidst the flag waving hurrahs but have no right of say in how future policy is implemented, just that we’re not party to it. The real losers here are UK employees who would have just lost more rights it people seem content with that if they think others are being impacted too!

One or two still seem hung up on migrants passing countries of safety. Let’s explain it another way. You’ve got a job at a Burger King 50 miles away but there’s a McDonald’s 10 miles away so you go to work there, what do you think will happen? So if you have a “job” waiting for you in the UK but you fancy stopping in Germany, Hungary or France, what do you think will happen?

Forbes estimate the profits of human trafficking in 2020 as £150bn per annum…. We’re talking a lot of people on a huge scale across the globe.

I’m not sure people appreciate just how nasty this whole thing is because if they did, they wouldn’t get frothy at the thought of migrants laughing at us because they’ve got some free pants and crisps from the UK Government.

Rather than penalise the victims, we need to assist in the restoration of democracy in these countries and let people live in the country they want to, and whilst the likes of Assad are still “President “ in Syria, that’s not going to happen given the standard of Politicians we currently possess.

[crankedup5]

Mobile Chicane said:

crankedup5 said:

TCX said:

Britannia,other hotel chains also, business model is for asylum, illegal immigrants,see the one round corner in Hampstead,all young men sitting outside, laughing n smoking with supposed guard,all in new sports wear,phones, jewelry,often chatting with 'friemds' who have escaped or just allowed to drift away,but why would they three squares a day,bottled water no tap water for these boys,easy life just waiting till they get into the general population

I spent a weekend in a Brittania hotel so that I could see for myself how the immigrants are treated.
No wonder they want to come to the U.K. Three cooked meals each day, en-suite facilities to each room, pocket money for whatever is required over and above the ‘basic offerings’. No security whatsoever to be seen.
All at U.K. tax payers expense, they are pissing themselves with laughter at our expense.

O RLY?

Have a Google for "Britannia Hotels " and see what comes up. Let's just say there aren't any in Surrey

If you have just arrived from what we are constantly told is akin to hell on earth, you would perhaps enjoy the comforts on offer. Do what I have already done, spend some time actually in one of the hotels, see for yourself and then be in a better position to make a judgement. Don’t rely on me or twitter accounts if you are really interested in the truth.

[crankedup5]

Condi said:

crankedup5 said:

I spent a weekend in a Brittania hotel so that I could see for myself how the immigrants are treated.
No wonder they want to come to the U.K. Three cooked meals each day, en-suite facilities to each room, pocket money for whatever is required over and above the ‘basic offerings’. No security whatsoever to be seen.
All at U.K. tax payers expense, they are pissing themselves with laughter at our expense.

They certainly dont get "pocket money for whatever is required", they get (from memory) about £30 a week.

Anyway, there are several threads on this already, the main arguments from one side are that the Navy should be using 15 inch guns to blast every small boat leaving the French shore to smithereens and all the people arriving are murders, thieves or economic migrants. The other side point out that the vast vast majority are deemed to have valid asylum claims, and as such are not economic migrants. The UK are also a member of the UNCHR, and could if desired leave, but the politicians don't like the optics of that. The French do actually stop just over 50% of vessels leaving their shores, although it of course far easier to blame the French than admit any responsibility lies with us.

That’s what I said, pocket money. Keep it in context of where these people have supposedly come from and the conditions that they have lived in. I think it’s £25 week btw.

Your second para’ is a well trodden path in PH.