UK to turn the illegal boats back on the channel
Discussion
Finally the government is putting forward a bill to allow the UK to stop the English channel being used as an illegal migrant trade route.
Something that should have been done from day 1.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9758637/M...
If this had been done from the start by the UK and a similar action done by the EU at their borders then the growth of illegal migrant trading would not have become the successful business model for criminals that it is today. Many lives would therefore have been saved. Refugees would have been better catered for in refugee camps instead of freezing on the streets of Calais and other EU cities.
No surprise though, the left parties have already decided they will vote against the bill in the commons. Seemingly happy enough for the debacle to continue with what is likely more lives to be lost in the channel.
Something that should have been done from day 1.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9758637/M...
If this had been done from the start by the UK and a similar action done by the EU at their borders then the growth of illegal migrant trading would not have become the successful business model for criminals that it is today. Many lives would therefore have been saved. Refugees would have been better catered for in refugee camps instead of freezing on the streets of Calais and other EU cities.
No surprise though, the left parties have already decided they will vote against the bill in the commons. Seemingly happy enough for the debacle to continue with what is likely more lives to be lost in the channel.
I think you're going to be deeply disappointed with the reality of the "turn the boats around" stuff. It requires the French to agree (and why would they accept a boat from UK territorial waters back into France?). The return would also have to be safe, whereas people regularly need rescuing off these things. And either way, just as now, anybody that gets intercepted will either end up in the hands of the British or French authorities, so how does turning the boats around achieve anything that isn't already happening?
This is yet more non-policy from the Conservative. They are desperate to be seen to be doing something about immigration even though in the grand scheme of things it is a non-problem for the UK and is caused by external factors that the UK cannot control. They are treating the electorate like pillocks, banking on the gullible to think (a) there is a big problem and (b) they're doing something about it.
The real issue here is the lack of a civilised and efficient response to the arrival of illegal immigrants and refugees. This is something the Home Office can control and deliver and they repeatedly fail to do so.
This is yet more non-policy from the Conservative. They are desperate to be seen to be doing something about immigration even though in the grand scheme of things it is a non-problem for the UK and is caused by external factors that the UK cannot control. They are treating the electorate like pillocks, banking on the gullible to think (a) there is a big problem and (b) they're doing something about it.
The real issue here is the lack of a civilised and efficient response to the arrival of illegal immigrants and refugees. This is something the Home Office can control and deliver and they repeatedly fail to do so.
k all.ATG said:
it is a non-problem for the UK
Just snipping this comment - I guess you think that 300 deaths since 1999 is not considered as a problem for the UK?https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/oct/29/al...
GroundZero said:
ATG said:
it is a non-problem for the UK
Just snipping this comment - I guess you think that 300 deaths since 1999 is not considered as a problem for the UK?https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/oct/29/al...
GroundZero said:
Finally the government is putting forward a bill to allow the UK to stop the English channel being used as an illegal migrant trade route.
Something that should have been done from day 1.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9758637/M...
If this had been done from the start by the UK and a similar action done by the EU at their borders then the growth of illegal migrant trading would not have become the successful business model for criminals that it is today. Many lives would therefore have been saved. Refugees would have been better catered for in refugee camps instead of freezing on the streets of Calais and other EU cities.
No surprise though, the left parties have already decided they will vote against the bill in the commons. Seemingly happy enough for the debacle to continue with what is likely more lives to be lost in the channel.
I am on the right political but I also recognise when a government is making stuff up. This bill is aimed at pleasing some voters. Unfortunately when you look at the detail it rather falls apart.Something that should have been done from day 1.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9758637/M...
If this had been done from the start by the UK and a similar action done by the EU at their borders then the growth of illegal migrant trading would not have become the successful business model for criminals that it is today. Many lives would therefore have been saved. Refugees would have been better catered for in refugee camps instead of freezing on the streets of Calais and other EU cities.
No surprise though, the left parties have already decided they will vote against the bill in the commons. Seemingly happy enough for the debacle to continue with what is likely more lives to be lost in the channel.
It seems BC will be turning back boats but only if the French agree. Yes I can see the French agreeing to that.
It also seems we are going to send those who enter illegally to prison for 4 years. Now anyone who enters the UK and successful claims asylum has not entered the UK illegally. So this can only apply to those who do not claim asylum or those who's claim is denied. So rather than deport them which can take time we will now have to pay for them to spend 4 years in a prison system already creaking at the seams before starting to deport them. Win win.
It also seem those who enter without permission and are granted asylum are going to denied basic benefits. So having agreed they have a genuine right to asylum we want to treat them as badly as possible. I suspect that will end up at the Supreme Court and all those lefty activist judges will decide it is not legal under the UNCR or the CHR.
Finally, it seems the government is going to reclaim its costs from lefty activity lawyers who bring unreasonable cases. Now I know Pretty Vacant is pretty stupid but even she should be aware the court system already has rules in place to ensure cases which have no merit do not waste the courts time. As it is I think about 60% of appeals against rejects are won so it maybe more the case of the HO wasting court time.
What a waste, what a waste, but I guess it will keep some frothers frothing.
TEKNOPUG said:
Firstly, If they are crossing the Channel from France, they aren't asylum seekers. Secondly, 300 have died after being allowed to sail from France, through French coastal waters, on unsafe, unregulated vessels, by French authorities probably doesn't get as many clicks for the Guardian...
You do understand saying something lots and lots of times does not make it true. Some who cross the channel have the right to claim asylum in the UK some do not. greygoose said:
The sentence "provided the French authorities agree" seems to be the critical part of this article, I suspect they will not so nothing will change.
Considering that the U.K. authorities don’t agree to these dinghies entering U.K. waters from France, what would happen? It’s not like the U.K. is loading them onto barges and launching the vessels towards France. Mrr T said:
TEKNOPUG said:
Firstly, If they are crossing the Channel from France, they aren't asylum seekers. Secondly, 300 have died after being allowed to sail from France, through French coastal waters, on unsafe, unregulated vessels, by French authorities probably doesn't get as many clicks for the Guardian...
You do understand saying something lots and lots of times does not make it true. Some who cross the channel have the right to claim asylum in the UK some do not. BabySharkDooDooDooDooDooDoo said:
greygoose said:
The sentence "provided the French authorities agree" seems to be the critical part of this article, I suspect they will not so nothing will change.
Considering that the U.K. authorities don’t agree to these dinghies entering U.K. waters from France, what would happen? It’s not like the U.K. is loading them onto barges and launching the vessels towards France. for asylum seekers is that even if they have already claimed in the EU they can now claim in the UK. A win win for those looking to come to the UK via boat.
TEKNOPUG said:
GroundZero said:
ATG said:
it is a non-problem for the UK
Just snipping this comment - I guess you think that 300 deaths since 1999 is not considered as a problem for the UK?https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/oct/29/al...
There's are a couple of points that I genuinely don't understand in all this.
Given their clearly desperate plight, what is so terrible about being in France (& mainland Europe), that immigrants and refugees seek at considerable risk, to cross the channel to get to the UK ?
Is there a significant difference, in the way that they are treated in the EU, by comparison with the UK ?
Given their clearly desperate plight, what is so terrible about being in France (& mainland Europe), that immigrants and refugees seek at considerable risk, to cross the channel to get to the UK ?
Is there a significant difference, in the way that they are treated in the EU, by comparison with the UK ?
"turn back"?
This is 2021. the days of allowing people to simply drown whist you stand impassionless on your vessel and watch are i'm afraid long gone.
All you have to do as an illegale boater is too "start to sink" or probably even just "look a bit overloaded" and the reception vessel will have NO CHOICE but to take those people into their care.
Perhaps we should just machine gun them in the water instead? Worked for the Japs in 1944/1945...........
This is 2021. the days of allowing people to simply drown whist you stand impassionless on your vessel and watch are i'm afraid long gone.
All you have to do as an illegale boater is too "start to sink" or probably even just "look a bit overloaded" and the reception vessel will have NO CHOICE but to take those people into their care.
Perhaps we should just machine gun them in the water instead? Worked for the Japs in 1944/1945...........
So what are the solutions?
The reason why so many are attempting the crossing is that they know once here the vast majority can stay.
So the people smuggling continues as a 'business model'. Resulting in more deaths, more financial hardship, more crime etc.
To cut the throat of this model there has to be an outcome whereby the vast majority who are obviously not asylum seekers but rather economic migrants entering illegally without visas, can be removed. How does the UK achieve that?
The reason why so many are attempting the crossing is that they know once here the vast majority can stay.
So the people smuggling continues as a 'business model'. Resulting in more deaths, more financial hardship, more crime etc.
To cut the throat of this model there has to be an outcome whereby the vast majority who are obviously not asylum seekers but rather economic migrants entering illegally without visas, can be removed. How does the UK achieve that?
GroundZero said:
So what are the solutions?
The reason why so many are attempting the crossing is that they know once here the vast majority can stay.
So the people smuggling continues as a 'business model'. Resulting in more deaths, more financial hardship, more crime etc.
To cut the throat of this model there has to be an outcome whereby the vast majority who are obviously not asylum seekers but rather economic migrants, can be removed. How does the UK achieve that?
The only western country that has come up with a solution is Australia. Every other country has blustered and threatened to no effect, if they have raised any complaint at all. The reason why so many are attempting the crossing is that they know once here the vast majority can stay.
So the people smuggling continues as a 'business model'. Resulting in more deaths, more financial hardship, more crime etc.
To cut the throat of this model there has to be an outcome whereby the vast majority who are obviously not asylum seekers but rather economic migrants, can be removed. How does the UK achieve that?
GroundZero said:
So what are the solutions?
The reason why so many are attempting the crossing is that they know once here the vast majority can stay.
So the people smuggling continues as a 'business model'. Resulting in more deaths, more financial hardship, more crime etc.
To cut the throat of this model there has to be an outcome whereby the vast majority who are obviously not asylum seekers but rather economic migrants entering illegally without visas, can be removed. How does the UK achieve that?
A Home Office and immigration system that’s fit for purpose?The reason why so many are attempting the crossing is that they know once here the vast majority can stay.
So the people smuggling continues as a 'business model'. Resulting in more deaths, more financial hardship, more crime etc.
To cut the throat of this model there has to be an outcome whereby the vast majority who are obviously not asylum seekers but rather economic migrants entering illegally without visas, can be removed. How does the UK achieve that?
If asylum seekers were processed quickly and efficiently, word would soon get round that even though you know you wouldn’t get leave to remain that the process no longer takes several years to fully judge your case and that chances of a quick removal are high.
We already have the laws in this country to effectively deal with asylum seekers but rather than fund properly the immigration courts to speedily process the cases as well as clear the completely insane backlog, we have a Home Sec who believes talking tough will deter those wishing to cross the Channel.
This is fluff to appeal to the frothers.
valiant said:
A Home Office and immigration system that’s fit for purpose?
If asylum seekers were processed quickly and efficiently, word would soon get round that even though you know you wouldn’t get leave to remain that the process no longer takes several years to fully judge your case and that chances of a quick removal are high.
We already have the laws in this country to effectively deal with asylum seekers but rather than fund properly the immigration courts to speedily process the cases as well as clear the completely insane backlog, we have a Home Sec who believes talking tough will deter those wishing to cross the Channel.
This is fluff to appeal to the frothers.
It doesn't matter if you have a quick and efficient asylum system if countries won't retake failed asylum seekers.If asylum seekers were processed quickly and efficiently, word would soon get round that even though you know you wouldn’t get leave to remain that the process no longer takes several years to fully judge your case and that chances of a quick removal are high.
We already have the laws in this country to effectively deal with asylum seekers but rather than fund properly the immigration courts to speedily process the cases as well as clear the completely insane backlog, we have a Home Sec who believes talking tough will deter those wishing to cross the Channel.
This is fluff to appeal to the frothers.
It also will not realistically remove this as a political issue as there are several hundred million who could justifiable claim asylum here under current interpretation of asylum rights and the only constraint is the physical barrier of getting here.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff