UK concerned by rise in small boats crossing from France, immigration official says

[david555]

5 hours ago, transam said:

Very funny....????

Fleeing countries at war, yes their own countries at war, nobody else's. 

 

The UK has a moat, the cash spongers are trying to cross it from France, it is France with the problem, they should send them back to where they come from....

They just have order to leave France with restriction to go to other E.U. country's …. (U.K. not any more under that exception)….that was always written on their "annex bis # ..(forgot ) the order to leave document (some had several ones likewise ) in my years I worked I knew (up to 2013)

So that is what they do now obeying the order LOL !  But they don't pas customs …. that is not o.k.  ????

 

Anyway only 4000 seems the total up to now ????  "Singapore on Thames  attraction" it must be 

[mokwit]

28 minutes ago, simple1 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/09/number-migrants-crossing-channel-uk-passes-4000-this-year

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-53456488

You keep posting The Guardian and BBC as if they were credible sources. Those of us not having a vested interest in the Left's narrative being propogated see them as what they are, dishonest, disingenuous Left wing propaganda that lies by omission and distortion to create a false narrative. NYT likewise.

 

If you want to make a point you have to post credible sources.

Edited August 10, 2020 by mokwit

[simple1]

Just now, mokwit said:

You keep posting The Guardian and BBC as if they were credible sources. Those of us not having a vested interest in the Left's narrative being propogated regard them as dishonest, disingenuous Left wing propaganda that lies by omission and distortion to create a false narrative. NYT likewise.

 

If you want to make a point you have to post credible sources.

If Mods will permit:

 

Both media outlets are treated as credible sources by TVF. I'm sure some members would be interested to see your reading list for news / opinions - don't be shy - go ahead, I will not critique - just a useful insight to the profile of members with your type of posting history.

[david555]

18 minutes ago, mokwit said:

You keep posting The Guardian and BBC as if they were credible sources. Those of us not having a vested interest in the Left's narrative being propogated regard them as dishonest, disingenuous Left wing propaganda that lies by omission and distortion to create a false narrative. NYT likewise.

 

If you want to make a point you have to post credible sources.

(As you needed a reliable source as The guardian is not accepted ....   well here the same 4000 number in ....THE TORY BIBLE ) ????      in third paragraphe the 4000 is there , you can check if true online too of course ????

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/08/09/britain-has-no-way-protect-new-wave-immigration/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

Britain has no way to protect itself from this new wave of immigration 
More Channel patrols won’t do – we need an offshore process for asylum seekers and tougher labour laws 

Even more than Brexit, no issue demonstrates the division between the country and its governing elites better than immigration. During election campaigns, and referendums too, politicians promise control and tell the voters they will get the numbers down. But between those campaigns, they hide behind the complexity of statistics and emphasise the apparently vital economic need for every kind of immigration: high-skilled, low-skilled, students, workers....

But now the politicians have to contend with a new problem. In place of complicated statistics, we have the simplicity of an image: photographs showing the steady flow of human traffic, crossing the Channel from France to enter Britain illegally.

Those pictures tell the shocking story of an almost total absence of immigration control. About 4,000 migrants have made the journey this year so far, already more than twice the number in 2019. Last Thursday alone, 235 crossed the Channel in seventeen separate vessels. In just a few months, Kent County Council has taken hundreds of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children

Edited August 10, 2020 by david555

[mokwit]

11 minutes ago, simple1 said:

If Mods will permit:

 

Both media outlets are treated as credible sources by TVF. I'm sure some members would be interested to see your reading list for news / opinions - don't be shy - go ahead, I will not critique - just a useful insight to the profile of members with your type of posting history.

The fact that they are MSM and thus treated as accepted sources by TVF does not actually mean they are credible. As for my sources: very broad and numerous from people in my twitter feed who highlight good sources - includes both the Left and the Right and mostly not MSM, sometimes scientific journals, because when both sides on the MSM are pushing a narrative, reading widely is the only way to get some feel for what the truth of something is. What were you expecting - Breitbart and Daily Caller/Fox News - Mirror images of The Guardian BBC and CNN. I have looked at all of those named, right and left - Breitbart not for months since they sunk to the dishonesty level of the Guardian.

 

Example: If I had read only the Guardian and not The Sun and the Daily Mail on the day the "children" from Calais landed I would have not got the correct picture - The Guardian showed apicture of a toddler on a tricycle while the others showed the truth - adult men posing as children - irrefutably so. Laughably, The Guardian who had been showing "refugee" Kiddie pictures daily suddenly declared showing photos of the Calais "children" landing in the UK would be contrary to their human rights.

Edited August 10, 2020 by mokwit

[simple1]

1 minute ago, mokwit said:

The fact that they are MSM and thus treated as accepted sources by TVF does not actually mean they are credible. As for my sources: very broad and numerous from people in my twitter feed who highlight good sources - includes both the Left and the Right and mostly not MSM, sometimes scientific journals, because when both sides on the MSM are pushing a narrative, reading widely is the only way to get some feel for what the truth of something is. What were you expecting - Breitbart and Daily Caller/Fox News - Mirror images of The Guardian BBC and CNN. I have looked at all of those named, right and left - Breitbart not for months since they sunk to the dishonesty level of the Guardian.

Non answer - your twitter sources are?

[mokwit]

Just now, simple1 said:

Non answer - your twitter sources are?

It is a perfectly good answer, I am explaining I use extremely broad sources, many not MSM - I am not going to even begin to waste time listing them - even if I could remember sources I may have looked at once. What you want every person in my twitter feed? I rely on people who are good aggregators.

 

 

[simple1]

35 minutes ago, mokwit said:

It is a perfectly good answer, I am explaining I use extremely broad sources, many not MSM - I am not going to even begin to waste time listing them - even if I could remember sources I may have looked at once. What you want every person in my twitter feed? I rely on people who are good aggregators.

 

 

Just a few is fine

[mokwit]

15 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Just a few is fine

I'm not going to go even that trouble for you - on a previous occasion you referred to me as 'the far right' and when I asked you to clarify you posted a definition that included Neo Nazis. That is offensive to me, but the real point is there is no point in engaging with someone who calls someone who is not in the same camp as them as 'the far right'/a Neo Nazi.

 

In the last few minutes links from people I follow have been from FT, SCMP, Zerohedge Reuters, NYPost but that tells you nothing as you don't know how much credibility I attach to each of these sources and many are less mainstream - if you are sitting there thinking Aha Gotcha! because it includes Zerohedge then I have to tell you I don't regard it as any more credible than The Guardian - but I look for fact in an article as I would with The Guardian, ignoring any bias. Zerohedge reports things The Guardian does not. Same with Breitbart e.g crime figures culled from court records which the MSM does not report. These records are facts, their interpretation is something else. I am after the facts.

 

I reiterate: Example: If I had read only the Guardian and not The Sun and the Daily Mail on the day the "children" from Calais landed I would have not got the correct picture - The Guardian showed apicture of a toddler on a tricycle while the others showed the truth - adult men posing as children - irrefutably so. Laughably, The Guardian who had been showing "refugee" Kiddie pictures daily suddenly declared showing photos of the Calais "children" landing in the UK would be contrary to their human rights.

Edited August 10, 2020 by mokwit

[mokwit]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

profile of members with your type of posting history

Please clarify my "type" of posting history.

 

One thing I have noticed is that there are people on this board who almost only, maybe only appear in political threads - you never see them posting an answer in a "where can I buy a XXXX' thread. You are of that type, and that is mostly your history. Now, what "type" am I?

[Surelynot]

..and we are the second largest exporter of arms in the world that supports the wars that displace these people.

 

Something is not quite right!

Edited August 10, 2020 by Surelynot

[CG1 Blue]

22 hours ago, Scott said:

As much as that is thrown around, not applying for asylum in the first country does not preclude an asylum seeker from seeking asylum in another country.   It is also not grounds for denying the asylum claim.  

 

But it does kibosh the argument that they are fleeing a dangerous country; if they've previously reached a safe country but decided to take a dangerous trip across the sea to reach another one. 

[Surelynot]

3 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

But it does kibosh the argument that they are fleeing a dangerous country; if they've previously reached a safe country but decided to take a dangerous trip across the sea to reach another one. 

 

[Opl]

16 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

 

"The Rwandan refugee, who worked as a warden at the cathedral, was rearrested on Saturday night.

No motive for the fire, which destroyed the cathedral's 17th Century organ as well as historic stained-glass windows, has been given.

His lawyer told reporters his client felt "relief" after confessing."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53542936

 

"Three Sudanese arrested over French 'terror' stabbing"Three Sudanese arrested over French 'terror' stabbing"

https://www.france24.com/en/20200405-three-sudanese-arrested-over-french-terror-stabbing

 

I could go on and on, just the past few months, so you'd better think twice before posting about France

 

 

Edited August 10, 2020 by Opl

[Scott]

7 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

But it does kibosh the argument that they are fleeing a dangerous country; if they've previously reached a safe country but decided to take a dangerous trip across the sea to reach another one. 

It doesn't say anything.  Every case and situation is different.   If refugees are in a camp in a country of first asylum, they are screened and then presented to various countries for possible admission.   They will always be presented to the country with family members if they exist.  

Many of the people were headed to a country where family members live.  

 

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, Scott said:

It doesn't say anything.  Every case and situation is different.   If refugees are in a camp in a country of first asylum, they are screened and then presented to various countries for possible admission.   They will always be presented to the country with family members if they exist.  

Many of the people were headed to a country where family members live.  

 

 

Is the status of said family members a factor? For example, if said family members are themselves previous or recent arrivals, with their referral anchored to someone who's not a family member of the applicant. Or does the above apply only to naturalized (fully or in the process of) family members in target country?

[Scott]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Is the status of said family members a factor? For example, if said family members are themselves previous or recent arrivals, with their referral anchored to someone who's not a family member of the applicant. Or does the above apply only to naturalized (fully or in the process of) family members in target country?

The status of the family members does not apply.   Whether they are still refugees, citizens or one of the steps between, does not matter.   The purpose of this is to try and not internationalize families. 

The problems became clear during the massive Vietnamese boat crisis.   People from the same family were leaving at different times and going to different countries -- some went to Hong Kong, some to the Philippines, some to Thailand.  They were getting resettled in different countries, so some ended up in the US, some in Australia, some in the US.   So, a policy was adopted to present an asylee to a country with family first.   

 

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

The status of the family members does not apply.   Whether they are still refugees, citizens or one of the steps between, does not matter.   The purpose of this is to try and not internationalize families. 

The problems became clear during the massive Vietnamese boat crisis.   People from the same family were leaving at different times and going to different countries -- some went to Hong Kong, some to the Philippines, some to Thailand.  They were getting resettled in different countries, so some ended up in the US, some in Australia, some in the US.   So, a policy was adopted to present an asylee to a country with family first.   

 

 

Thanks. I guess it makes sense from refugee welfare and well-being point of view. Also makes things easier to handle on an organizational level. On the other hand, it does go toward explaining the feeling (of some) that each refugee allowed in country is a potential magnet for an endless string of family members.

[Scott]

18 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Thanks. I guess it makes sense from refugee welfare and well-being point of view. Also makes things easier to handle on an organizational level. On the other hand, it does go toward explaining the feeling (of some) that each refugee allowed in country is a potential magnet for an endless string of family members.

There are limits.  When refugee status is conferred on someone it usually extends to every member of his immediate family and/or household.   Those further down the chain of relationship are not refugees unless they have their own independent claim.  If the family in the resettlement country wants them to come, they have to sponsor them as an immigrant and go through the immigration process.  The waiting time for the various classifications of family reunification can get very long.  I remember that for someone in the US sponsoring a sibling as an immigrant, it took 15 years.   People are prioritized for resettlement.   A minor child whose parent(s) are awaiting resettlement have the highest priority, followed by a spouse and minor children.  

Sponsoring an immigrant requires having adequate funds to support them for a period of time (in the US, that requirement is for 10 years).  

The situation in the distant past was that people fleeing did stop in the first country of asylum and were screened and resettled (or returned).  The situation is now different with many ME people having easy access to Europe.   In general, most of those people will head for family, whether it is the UK, Sweden or Germany.  

 

[mvdf]

On 8/8/2020 at 6:59 AM, johnray said:

Kept out the Germans for two world wars.  Can't keep control of a small white boat.

Another Brit who can't get over the war trauma gnawing in his insides. What is it with Brits who have such an obnoxiously stubborn preoccupation with the war and Germans? This, their atrociously infamous dental issues and their propensity for causing trouble while traveling outside their borders are reasons some of them should be permanently banned from being issued passports.

[simple1]

10 hours ago, mokwit said:

I'm not going to go even that trouble for you - on a previous occasion you referred to me as 'the far right' and when I asked you to clarify you posted a definition that included Neo Nazis. That is offensive to me, but the real point is there is no point in engaging with someone who calls someone who is not in the same camp as them as 'the far right'/a Neo Nazi.

 

In the last few minutes links from people I follow have been from FT, SCMP, Zerohedge Reuters, NYPost but that tells you nothing as you don't know how much credibility I attach to each of these sources and many are less mainstream - if you are sitting there thinking Aha Gotcha! because it includes Zerohedge then I have to tell you I don't regard it as any more credible than The Guardian - but I look for fact in an article as I would with The Guardian, ignoring any bias. Zerohedge reports things The Guardian does not. Same with Breitbart e.g crime figures culled from court records which the MSM does not report. These records are facts, their interpretation is something else. I am after the facts.

 

I reiterate: Example: If I had read only the Guardian and not The Sun and the Daily Mail on the day the "children" from Calais landed I would have not got the correct picture - The Guardian showed apicture of a toddler on a tricycle while the others showed the truth - adult men posing as children - irrefutably so. Laughably, The Guardian who had been showing "refugee" Kiddie pictures daily suddenly declared showing photos of the Calais "children" landing in the UK would be contrary to their human rights.

 

 

Your political commentary is IMO aligned to the current definition of 'far right'. Yes the definition includes 'neo Nazis. If IMO I considered you are aligned to neo Nazism, I would say so, which I haven't. 

 

Child asylum seekers were permitted to enter the UK via Calais, though does appear some were presenting fraudulent ID, the actual numbers I do not know. You will be pleased to note HMG will be ceasing child asylum seeker / refugee reunification, unless overturned, IMO it is unnecessary and cruel and contrary to the tradition of UK humanitarianism.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/08/mps-vote-to-drop-child-refugee-protections-from-brexit-bill

 

Regards the rest of your post nothing but deflection as to why you refuse to advise some of your twitter sources, the usual response by members who rant with a hard-right attitude. No need to respond as your opportunity to establish your credibility has passed; shame really as cannot commence some understanding of really what drives political opinion with people such as yourself.

 

 

Edited August 10, 2020 by simple1

[simple1]

10 hours ago, mokwit said:

Please clarify my "type" of posting history.

 

One thing I have noticed is that there are people on this board who almost only, maybe only appear in political threads - you never see them posting an answer in a "where can I buy a XXXX' thread. You are of that type, and that is mostly your history. Now, what "type" am I?

Excellent power of observation, not. I currently live in Australia. I lived in Thailand, Nong Prue where we have a house, for around four years. Unfortunately due to my need for ongoing cancer treatment I cannot afford to return to Thailand full time, but do so from time to time to catch up with extended Thai family and so on.

[JonnyF]

Good to see our "friends and partners" in the EU (primarily France in this case) dumping their trash on us before the withdrawal period ends. 

 

These are not refugees. France is not a war torn country and the rule is they stay in the first safe country. Instead, the French are escorting them into British waters. Once again the EU talking big about fairness, working in good faith etc. while trying to stab us in the back.

 

Priti Patel needs to grow a pair as well. Tow them back out like Australia does.

[Scott]

Off-topic, bickering posts removed.   Please keep it civil.  

 

[stevenl]

37 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

<snip>

These are not refugees. France is not a war torn country and the rule is they stay in the first safe country. Instead, the French are escorting them into British waters. Once again the EU talking big about fairness, working in good faith etc. while trying to stab us in the back.

<snip>

See post # 247 

[transam]

41 minutes ago, stevenl said:

See post # 247 

See .....The rubber boats floating towards the UK, these people have passed through first world countries, many paying agents to sort the journey, yes a money making venture.

 

The boat people are the French problem, they are camped in France. Where do the boats come from, why don't the French stop the boarding of rubber boats from their soil....?

[stevenl]

7 minutes ago, transam said:

See .....The rubber boats floating towards the UK, these people have passed through first world countries, many paying agents to sort the journey, yes a money making venture.

 

The boat people are the French problem, they are camped in France. Where do the boats come from, why don't the French stop the boarding of rubber boats from their soil....?

Nothing at all to do with my post.

[Surelynot]

6 hours ago, mvdf said:

Another Brit who can't get over the war trauma gnawing in his insides. What is it with Brits who have such an obnoxiously stubborn preoccupation with the war and Germans? This, their atrociously infamous dental issues and their propensity for causing trouble while traveling outside their borders are reasons some of them should be permanently banned from being issued passports.

As a Brit (with reasonable teeth) it is beyond comprehension why trouble makers are allowed passports (even the new black ones)...........as for the war I find it best not to mention it.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Good to see our "friends and partners" in the EU (primarily France in this case) dumping their trash on us before the withdrawal period ends. 

 

These are not refugees. France is not a war torn country and the rule is they stay in the first safe country. Instead, the French are escorting them into British waters. Once again the EU talking big about fairness, working in good faith etc. while trying to stab us in the back.

 

Priti Patel needs to grow a pair as well. Tow them back out like Australia does.

‘Trash’.

 

Don’t hesitate to let your choice of language denigrate and dehumanize others.

 

Get over the EU owing you anything, you left, remember.

[Rimmer]

A general flame has been removed also a reply