UK to propose asylum ban on English Channel migrants

[superal]

1 hour ago, HauptmannUK said:

Some tough talk to please the conference - there will be no follow through. The truth is that the UK had always been fairly relaxed about illegal immigration. The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are not refugees, they are economic migrants from countries such as Albania, Ghana, Tunisia etc etc.  The UK government know this, they have precise data.  If they wanted to fix this issue it would have been fixed years ago. The government know that these people provide cheap labour.  Many work 'zero hours' in food factories and warehouses where there is no document checking whatsoever - they turn up for a shift and just write their name on a piece of paper - no questions asked. They are often driven out to these employers by 'agents' who take a cut of their wages. France offers them very little (no accommodation, one cup of coffee and half a baguette each day, tight control on access to healthcare and a national ID system). In contrast the UK offers accommodation, the English language, light-touch policing, very well established and well-funded community centres, temples etc, free at point of delivery healthcare etc.  Very slim chance of being caught and even slimmer chance of being deported.

Unlike most of Europe the UK has no ID cards and many public services are available without any identity checks at all.

My family operate a motor-trade business in the UK. A neighbouring small unit is operate by an Indian guy. He makes no secret at all of the fact that he came to the UK illegally 16 years ago at the age of 14. He stayed with an aunt. Enrolled in a UK high school. Got a NI number and set up a small business. He told me that under the government's '20 year rule' when he's been in the UK for 20 years the Home Office have to give him citizenship, illegal entry or not.

I agree with you . Problem here is that it is a sensitive subject and your words have to chosen carefully . We are open to accusations of being racists or non compliance with human rights treaties . Theses economic gate crashers  mostly consist of young unskilled single men who are seeking an easy way of life in the UK whilst being supported by various benefits . They come often without passports or I.D. and cannot be vetted . Many have a criminal past and are breaking entry laws into the UK and therefore should be deported . They are also a burden to the already overstretched NHS and housing stock . The UK navy should pick them up in mid channel with an amphibious craft , return to the French beaches , lower the ramps and usher them off .

  I have no problem with real asylum seekers such as the Ukrainian people .

[Harveyboy]

20 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

They want to reach the UK because they believe that simply by getting to the UK they will be given money and a free house.  It isn't related to the economic performance.

and they do get it lots of it whilst British people struggle.. Country is finished....

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

Legal Immigrants like Suella Braverman have just as much right to be concerned about illegal immigration to the UK as anyone else. Whether they are first generation or second generation. They are UK citizens now and shouldn't have to conform to your (or anyone else's) antiquated stereoptypes about how immigrants should think.

My post to which you have responded was a statement of observable fact, I said absolutely nothing about how immigrants or their children should think.

 

However you do make a very valid point.

 

Making assumptions on how immigrants, or indeed the children of immigrants should think is indeed an example of racist thinking

 

This is especially so when adopting or disseminating gross pejorative generalizations of how  you believe immigrants think.

 

An example might be ‘Immigrants only come to the UK to sponge off the welfare state/for free housing/benefits etc’ 

 

We frequently see some members making this form of gross pejorative assumptions on the thinking of immigrants, often receiving multiple positive responses from other members.

 

Another example is ‘an immigrant/asylum seeker should feel safe and should stay in (some other country than the UK)’ 

 

I can think of few more definite examples of an individual’s thoughts than how they feel about their own safety.

 

And yet we frequently see posts from some members stating how immigrants should feel about where they should feel safe - and oddly such posts get positive reactions from the self same members.

 

I’m with you in this JohnnyF, making assumptions on how immigrants and asylum seekers think or should think, especially when backed by grossly pejorative assumptions is racist.

 

 

 

[Rimmer]

A couple of baitng posts removed also a reply

[baboon]

57 minutes ago, superal said:

I agree with you . Problem here is that it is a sensitive subject and your words have to chosen carefully . We are open to accusations of being racists or non compliance with human rights treaties . Theses economic gate crashers  mostly consist of young unskilled single men who are seeking an easy way of life in the UK whilst being supported by various benefits . They come often without passports or I.D. and cannot be vetted . Many have a criminal past and are breaking entry laws into the UK and therefore should be deported . They are also a burden to the already overstretched NHS and housing stock . The UK navy should pick them up in mid channel with an amphibious craft , return to the French beaches , lower the ramps and usher them off .

  I have no problem with real asylum seekers such as the Ukrainian people .

So they turn up "without passports or ID and cannot be vetted", yet you know many have a criminal past despite nobody knowing who the hell they are?

You do see how that doesn't actually make any sense?

[transam]

9 minutes ago, baboon said:

So they turn up "without passports or ID and cannot be vetted", yet you know many have a criminal past despite nobody knowing who the hell they are?

You do see how that doesn't actually make any sense?

Anyone who turns up on UK shores with no passport or ID should be treated as a criminal, especially boatloads......????

 

Unless you personally want to guarantee them, will you, would you guarantee them...?  

[billd766]

5 hours ago, baboon said:

When it comes to your darkest hour of need, I can only hope and pray the same level of love and charity is bestowed upon you that you would inflict on others.

But France is already a safe country, so there is no need to make the dangerous journey across the English Channel to the UK.

 

That is of course if they landed directly in France. If they landed in a different country and then made their way to France, then it is the responsibility of the French to return them to the first country.

[baboon]

11 minutes ago, billd766 said:

But France is already a safe country, so there is no need to make the dangerous journey across the English Channel to the UK.

Clearly those arriving on the dinghies see it differently. 

[transam]

13 minutes ago, baboon said:

Clearly those arriving on the dinghies see it differently. 

As you do......????

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, baboon said:

Clearly those arriving on the dinghies see it differently. 

Maybe they are coming because they love Beans on Toast and a bit of milk in their tea? 

 

Yes that must be it. It couldn't possibly be due to the handouts on offer from historically weak governments...

[GarryP]

I don't know, but perhaps many of the refugees already speak English to a reasonable standard, whereas they may not speak French at all. In such a case, surely it makes sense to try to get in to the UK rather than staying in France and having trouble communicating. On the other hand, for those that already speak French, why would they still wish to enter the UK?  

[transam]

6 minutes ago, GarryP said:

I don't know, but perhaps many of the refugees already speak English to a reasonable standard, whereas they may not speak French at all. In such a case, surely it makes sense to try to get in to the UK rather than staying in France and having trouble communicating. On the other hand, for those that already speak French, why would they still wish to enter the UK?  

I doubt the majority speak English or French...????

[CharlieH]

Reported post removed.

[MisterTee]

3 hours ago, transam said:

I doubt the majority speak English or French...????

Not to worry.

   English classes are part of the expected package.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/5/2022 at 5:31 PM, Hanaguma said:

Sounds like an eminently sensible policy. People trying to go from France to the UK are not in distress or danger. THey are already in a safe country, so there is no need to travel further to seek asylum. It is obvious that they are only seeking economic advantage. 

Agree 100%.

I was discussing exactly the "send them to another country to await their asylum hearing result" years ago on this forum. The Australians did it years ago and it works.

Nobody has the right to jump the q and arrive by rubber dingy expecting to be welcome.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/6/2022 at 1:30 PM, baboon said:

When it comes to your darkest hour of need, I can only hope and pray the same level of love and charity is bestowed upon you that you would inflict on others.

I suspect that in his hour of darkest need, he will just remain in his home country and attempt to fix it, rather than paying large to criminals to transport him to a country where he is not welcome, in the expectation of largesse paid for by other people.

[superal]

23 hours ago, baboon said:

So they turn up "without passports or ID and cannot be vetted", yet you know many have a criminal past despite nobody knowing who the hell they are?

You do see how that doesn't actually make any sense?

Sorry , I think the attached link will help .

 https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/what-we-do/crime-threats/organised-immigration-crime

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/6/2022 at 6:13 PM, superal said:

I agree with you . Problem here is that it is a sensitive subject and your words have to chosen carefully . We are open to accusations of being racists or non compliance with human rights treaties . Theses economic gate crashers  mostly consist of young unskilled single men who are seeking an easy way of life in the UK whilst being supported by various benefits . They come often without passports or I.D. and cannot be vetted . Many have a criminal past and are breaking entry laws into the UK and therefore should be deported . They are also a burden to the already overstretched NHS and housing stock . The UK navy should pick them up in mid channel with an amphibious craft , return to the French beaches , lower the ramps and usher them off .

  I have no problem with real asylum seekers such as the Ukrainian people .

While I disagree that they are seeking an easy way of life ( they have to repay the criminals that support them along the way and presumably want to send money home ) IMO they are complicit in criminal activity simply by paying criminals to get them illegally into the UK.

 

However, since the UK is no longer in the EU, I doubt they can simply be returned to France, though IMO that is what should have happened when Britain was in the UK- put them on a bus and send them back by ferry.

IMO had the British government actually wanted to solve the problem back then they could have done so, ergo they didn't, for whatever reason they had.

[Scott]

50 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

While I disagree that they are seeking an easy way of life ( they have to repay the criminals that support them along the way and presumably want to send money home ) IMO they are complicit in criminal activity simply by paying criminals to get them illegally into the UK.

 

However, since the UK is no longer in the EU, I doubt they can simply be returned to France, though IMO that is what should have happened when Britain was in the UK- put them on a bus and send them back by ferry.

IMO had the British government actually wanted to solve the problem back then they could have done so, ergo they didn't, for whatever reason they had.

Once an immigrant leaves France and heads to the UK, it's almost impossible to return them to France.  You cannot force a country to accept someone who is not a national of that country.  Repatriation needs to be to the country of orgin unless some other agreement is in place.  

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Scott said:

Once an immigrant leaves France and heads to the UK, it's almost impossible to return them to France.  You cannot force a country to accept someone who is not a national of that country.  Repatriation needs to be to the country of orgin unless some other agreement is in place.  

I agree that is the current situation, but when Britain was in the EU I believe they didn't have passport checks between EU countries, so how would they know if the person on the bus was an EU national or not?

I could be wrong on that, as I never tried to go to France when living in the UK when it was part of the EU.

I know there were no passport checks between Eire and the UK, but that may be a different situation.

However, Australia proves that it is not necessary to let those in rubber boats crossing the channel to land on the UK mainland. They could simply load them onto navy ships and transport them to an island somewhere else. While they might not have been able to do that while in the EU ( EU rules ) that isn't applicable anymore. I'm sure if they really wanted to stop channel crossings they could do so. That they don't is telling IMO.

While some do not approve of the Australian solution, it appears to have stopped people dying on unsuitable boats trying to get to Australia by sea, and isn't that the important thing?

[Scott]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I agree that is the current situation, but when Britain was in the EU I believe they didn't have passport checks between EU countries, so how would they know if the person on the bus was an EU national or not?

I could be wrong on that, as I never tried to go to France when living in the UK when it was part of the EU.

I know there were no passport checks between Eire and the UK, but that may be a different situation.

However, Australia proves that it is not necessary to let those in rubber boats crossing the channel to land on the UK mainland. They could simply load them onto navy ships and transport them to an island somewhere else. While they might not have been able to do that while in the EU ( EU rules ) that isn't applicable anymore. I'm sure if they really wanted to stop channel crossings they could do so. That they don't is telling IMO.

While some do not approve of the Australian solution, it appears to have stopped people dying on unsuitable boats trying to get to Australia by sea, and isn't that the important thing?

Because countries have agreements allowing for free passage of citizens and do not routinely check passports does not mean they can't check and it does not mean that people who are not citizens of an EU country have the right to travel.  

 

If they could be returned to France, don't you think this would have been done during the time that the UK was in the EU?  

 

Loading people on boats still does not relieve a country of following it's own laws.  If they are on a British ship in British waters they are subject to British law.  If they are put on a British island, they are still under British law.  If they are sent to a 3rd country, it is by agreement, but that solution tends to run afoul of international agreements.  

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

Because countries have agreements allowing for free passage of citizens and do not routinely check passports does not mean they can't check and it does not mean that people who are not citizens of an EU country have the right to travel.  

 

If they could be returned to France, don't you think this would have been done during the time that the UK was in the EU?  

 

Loading people on boats still does not relieve a country of following it's own laws.  If they are on a British ship in British waters they are subject to British law.  If they are put on a British island, they are still under British law.  If they are sent to a 3rd country, it is by agreement, but that solution tends to run afoul of international agreements.  

I'm surprised it wasn't done, but I'm not in the British government to know why they didn't.

Australia is not popular in certain circles for it's policy on sea arrivals, but it does seem to have stopped the deaths at sea, which is the important thing, is it not?

Far as I know they don't send undocumented immigrants to the island if they arrive by air and land in Australia. It's a policy designed to stop people trying to sail on unseaworthy vessels.

I don't see why it would not work in the case of channel crossings if the British government did it too, provided they exited certain agreements. Up to them.

[Bluespunk]

Some excellent news on the government’s Rwanda scheme 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/21/airline-hired-uk-rwanda-deportations-pulls-out-privilege-style?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other