Channel crossing record beat.(again and again and again)

[BillyStubbsTears]

And what do you think France might say about that?

[Sprotyrover]

I hope that is what was agreed on Friday' Mon Ami!

[danumdon]

My solution would be,build a detention centre in North France, staff it with Border Force/immigration/French Security officers. All asylum Seekers will be processed there if they are genuine put the on a ferry and ship em to a resettlement site, if they Fail, i.e. Albanian or other safe country, or clearly a military militant threat they are not processed but sent on their way, from 'D' days any boat loads recovered Mid Chanel are returned to the centre and processed. It might cost £500 a year but it will be effective. A bit like the huge compound in Nigeria that processes peeps wanting to travel to the UK legally.and I wouldn't bother with Rwanda.

When you look at the money that has been spent and on the results we have achieved it becomes a no brainer to not start to process all applicants in France, if the asylum achieved percentage is running at over 70% then it really beggars belief why we waste so much money on the far fetched schemes like Rwanda, ect. Id imagine this method would require assistance from the French authorities to deal with the failed individuals but when we are ready and willing to pay them even more for what they have obviously not achieved previously they its not really in their interests to help us out.

Lets hope that when Starmer assumes control he applies some common sense to this issue and stop the smugglers business plan in its tracks. We are throwing absolutely huge sums at this issue for no real return, we need to be much smarter/honest/pragmatic/ and take our responsibilities much more seriously for all concerned.

[DonnyOsmond]

My solution would be,build a detention centre in North France, staff it with Border Force/immigration/French Security officers. All asylum Seekers will be processed there if they are genuine put the on a ferry and ship em to a resettlement site, if they Fail, i.e. Albanian or other safe country, or clearly a military militant threat they are not processed but sent on their way, from 'D' days any boat loads recovered Mid Chanel are returned to the centre and processed. It might cost £500 a year but it will be effective. A bit like the huge compound in Nigeria that processes peeps wanting to travel to the UK legally.and I wouldn't bother with Rwanda.

When you look at the money that has been spent and on the results we have achieved it becomes a no brainer to not start to process all applicants in France, if the asylum achieved percentage is running at over 70% then it really beggars belief why we waste so much money on the far fetched schemes like Rwanda, ect. Id imagine this method would require assistance from the French authorities to deal with the failed individuals but when we are ready and willing to pay them even more for what they have obviously not achieved previously they its not really in their interests to help us out.

Lets hope that when Starmer assumes control he applies some common sense to this issue and stop the smugglers business plan in its tracks. We are throwing absolutely huge sums at this issue for no real return, we need to be much smarter/honest/pragmatic/ and take our responsibilities much more seriously for all concerned.

Not forgetting the lives it would save.

[ravenrover]

But would it stop the ones rejected from making the crossing? Where are these safe countries Cruella talks about?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

The staff and funding that's been over there for years hasn't made much difference so not sure this will.

I do wonder what is it about this country that's so attractive for them versus say France?

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP.

If you were seeking asylum and you had the choice between Australia and Japan, which would be your preference?

[DonnyOsmond]

The staff and funding that's been over there for years hasn't made much difference so not sure this will.

I do wonder what is it about this country that's so attractive for them versus say France?

Language or family potentially.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

BFYP.

If you were seeking asylum and you had the choice between Australia and Japan, which would be your preference?

I'd imagine Japan to be more welcoming than australia.

Get the point on language that makes sense but not sure what the attraction is for the non English speakers.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Many people speak English as a second language.

[SydneyRover]

You're right pud Australia is not welcoming at all to any that arrive by boat.

“We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.”

One Nation were taking votes from the right and John Howard (lib/nat coalition) seized the opportunity when the Tampa rescued boat people at sea, he refused them entry. Since then the murdoch and mainly rw media have used is to bash anyone that speaks against it.

All this latest shit shit in the UK is take straight from this inhuman playbook.

https://howardlibrary.unsw.edu.au/explore/tampa-controversy

[Branton Red]

The Tories Immigration Bill is doomed to failure from legal objections in the Courts. I suspect that they are aware of this and are simply playing to the gallery of their supporters.

However these small boat crossings, and indeed the smuggling of people from Asia/Africa across Europe need to be stopped. Lives are being put at risk by criminals who are profiting out of it.

My 6 step process of dealing with this in the UK.

1) Most obviously. Put money into the system to process claims a heck of a lot quicker.

2) Pursuing and leading on International policing co-operation going for the criminal gangs. A couple of years ago after migrants died crossing the Channel it was amazingly enlightening how quickly, with international co-operation, the criminal gang responsible were brought to justice.

3) More co-operation with France in stopping the boats being launched. Give the French what they really want, and what morally we have a duty to do, which is more military support of the French army in sub-Saharan Africa defending democracies against ISIS insurgencies.

4) Set up, with the co-operation of the relevant countries, refugee processing centres as close to the borders of the countries most refugees come from as possible. Save the refugees therefore the need of travelling dangerously 100s of miles using criminal gangs and give the most vulnerable and needing of our protection more chance of applying.

5) In said centres take photos and fingerprints of all applicants. Those whose applications fail should be told clearly that if they at a later date are caught entering the UK that their failed application will still be valid and they will be immediately deported. Hence again preventing unnecessary fraught journeys to the UK using criminals.

6) Those entering the UK who refuse to identify where they are from or give false information of where they are from to be deported asap to a 3rd country (not Rwanda given their human rights record but a deal can be done with a safe country in return for £££). No genuine refugee would behave in this way.

[SydneyRover]

What about those fleeing without papers?

[Branton Red]

What about those fleeing without papers?

They will take longer to process obviously.

A refugee can be honest about where they are from without papers - time will just be needed to verify their claim but that should be possible with the right resources.

[SydneyRover]

And that is part of the problem it can take an age, because the story has to be verified by someone on the ground where the person has come from.

[Branton Red]

And that is part of the problem it can take an age, because the story has to be verified by someone on the ground where the person has come from.

I absolutely agree Sydney.

Hence my first point about the importance of putting more resources into the system to process claims quicker.

The more people employed doing this, the quicker the claims can be processed.

[SydneyRover]

And fixing the ''problem'' becomes far more expensive than the problem

[Branton Red]

And fixing the ''problem'' becomes far more expensive than the problem

We're a wealthy country though and have a moral duty to process these claims as quickly as possible rather than keeping genuine refugees in an insecure, unsure limbo for months on end. No?

This increase in funding would only need to be temporary whilst the backlog is dealt with - my other 5 points are about stopping the issue at source.

[SydneyRover]

And the ''problem'' never goes away because it's always a shadow, a threat to decent politics, whenever an election looms it rises out of the sewers as a threat by the right wing that the left are going soft on refugees.

The far right will always use division and the the right will feel forced to adopt parts of to save drift of their votes.

This has been raging for 5 or so years and has only recently been sorted, poor people being whipped up as the enemy.

''What we've learnt from nine weeks of Robodebt royal commission hearings''

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-11/robodebt-scheme-government-royal-commission-fraud/102074840

[drfchound]

So what do you suggest Syd, to sort out the delays.

[normal rules]

Yvette Cooper saying the right thing for a future Labour Govt.

Ms Cooper said that a Labour government would set itself the target of stopping all small boat crossings.

She said: “That has to be our objective to stop all of the boat crossings and prevent the boat crossings because they’re putting lives at risk and because they undermine border security.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjOpLP6nt79AhWGZ8AKHbJYAi8QFnoECAsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fpolitics%2F2023%2F03%2F10%2Fyvette-cooper-labour-government-will-aim-stop-small-boat-crossings%2F&usg=AOvVaw1S0gc635uRffn2h9-vNz_O

[wilts rover]

But Yvette Cooper wont need to stop the small boat crossings as Sunak will have already stopped them by then wont he? Or is he lying to the country when he says he will?

[drfchound]

I didn’t think Sunak said he would stop the boats coming.
I’m sure he said that if people come here illegally he would ensure they would not be able to stay.
Good luck to anyone who says they can stop the boats coming over.

[ravenrover]

The question here is  what constitutes "illegal". As I understand it , it is not illegal to enter by a small boat and claim asylum even without any papers, it becomes illegal if your claim is rejected.
How many have had their claim processed and turned down and removed to a "safe" country?

[SydneyRover]

The question here is  what constitutes "illegal". As I understand it , it is not illegal to enter by a small boat and claim asylum even without any papers, it becomes illegal if your claim is rejected.
How many have had their claim processed and turned down and removed to a "safe" country?

And then it is only illegal if you stay in the country against an order to be deported.

[DonnyOsmond]

The question here is  what constitutes "illegal". As I understand it , it is not illegal to enter by a small boat and claim asylum even without any papers, it becomes illegal if your claim is rejected.
How many have had their claim processed and turned down and removed to a "safe" country?

I guess it's illegal if you enter the country and then don't report your entry to anyone.

[ravenrover]

Agreed, but are they the small boats contingents? I think not, how many land without being escorted in?

[DonnyOsmond]

Agreed, but are they the small boats contingents? I think not, how many land without being escorted in?

98% of those that come here claim asylum, was the governments figures.

[ravenrover]

So you are talking about 2%

[BillyStubbsTears]

The question here is  what constitutes "illegal". As I understand it , it is not illegal to enter by a small boat and claim asylum even without any papers, it becomes illegal if your claim is rejected.
How many have had their claim processed and turned down and removed to a "safe" country?

It's going to become illegal to arrive that way once this Bill is approved.

At that point, if you arrive in a boat, even if you are a genuibe asylum seeker (as was the case in 62% of processed applications from those who arrived in boats last year) you will be deemed to have committed a criminal act and will be deported.

And other than a few specific situations, there will then be no way for any genuine asylum seeker to arrive legally I'm Britain and claim sanctuary.

That is the morally disgusting aspect of this Bill.

It's designed not to solve the problem.

It's designed to be legally unworkable and smashed by lawyers, the UN and the ECHR.

That's what Braverman wants.

To be able to say "Look I've tried to sort this out, but the pinko, woke blob are stopping me delivering the Will of the People."

It's all about making angry people more angry.