• Welcome to PASOTI (Sponsored by GA Solictors and Lang & Potter)
  • Hello guests - don't forget that by registering and signing up for Pasoti you'll see less adverts plus receive extras like free match tickets, taking part in polls, joining in the chat room and more. Come and join us!

How do we stop immigrants dying?

It has been obvious for months that there is no single solution to the border crossing problem, but the most logical would surely be a centre on the french border where immigrants could make their application, which would need to be processed swiftly. Obviously the problem remains that those rejected would probably still attempt a crossing, but the greatly reduced numbers might make the whole operation less attractive to the people smugglers organising this, particularly if linked to a joint UK/France border patrol covering the 200k french shoreline.

However David Blunket hit the nail on the head this morning when he said that the whole immigration subject was now so toxic that any policy which appeared to assist immigration would result in Farage becoming PM!

OK an exaggeration, but he makes the point well. I think it would help if the government were to produce a proper strategy for managing immigration flows for those seeking asylum on genuine grounds. We currently have fewer illegal immigrants since the start of covid and Brexit, combined with more effective barriers surrounding lorries. If the government were to publish a weekly figure of those numbers processed and allowed entry, showing that there was no increase in past numbers through proper control, then might this not obviate the Farage supporter reaction?
 

signalspast

50/50 Sponsor
T.O Support
Aug 17, 2005
1,336
26
whilst controversial I consider the only answer is to make them think that by crossing it would not benefit them. To this end I would have camp's off shore. Various countries have been mentioned with Denmark planning to use an African country. They can then be processed. A bit like Australia who has managed to stop the boat crossings to their country with a similar scheme
 
Nov 15, 2011
1,902
312
So much nonsense and misinformation around on this issue.

The U.K. takes 3% of European asylum seekers, 3 times less than france 5 times less than Germany. We don’t take our fair share.

We take in less than in the past they are just centred on the channel cos the safe routes have been closed.

23,000 this year, mainly fit young people who want to work and pay tax. We have 1 million job vacancies.

An asylum seeker gets higher allowances in France. The relatively small amount who cross the channel do so cos of friends family and language.

Brexit has made it much more difficult to take back control of our borders, through less cooperation with our old partners and leaving the Dublin Agreement where we could return people to European countries.
 
Jul 15, 2006
3,896
57
Kenton, Devon
whilst controversial I consider the only answer is to make them think that by crossing it would not benefit them. To this end I would have camp's off shore. Various countries have been mentioned with Denmark planning to use an African country. They can then be processed. A bit like Australia who has managed to stop the boat crossings to their country with a similar scheme

Various counties have been mentioned, and in nearly all cases those countries weren't aware of such ideas (e.g. Albania). And, yes, Denmark is looking at such a scheme with Rwanda being the only likely country - but under International Law Denmark would still be completely responsible for the care and protection of those individuals, and nobody is entirely sure of whether people in those camps would be under Danish or Rwandan law. What we can't have are the kinds of camps - and the problems they created - used by Australia.
 
Jul 15, 2006
3,896
57
Kenton, Devon
Back to the O/P - how do we stop immigrants dying crossing the Channel: simple - let down the drawbridge we've pulled up and give these people safe passage to the UK to process their asylum claim. From interviews this morning, those camped up in France waiting to cross are still going to try to cross the Channel, even after what happened yesterday. And doing it in a more controlled manner would alleviate the pressure on the local councils in Kent (and the RNLI) who are at the sharp end with dealing with the boat-loads coming ashore every day. And with the weather changing as we head into Winter, there will be more deaths in the months ahead.

Going forward, snuff out the people smugglers (they can't be that hard to find: if a desperate family from Syria can find them, then anyone can). Have the UK work with France to put together better facilities on the French side of the Channel where refugees can rest, dressed and fed, and away from the smugglers. Deal with the traffickers close to the Turkish border or the Med. And try to help improve conditions (not getting involved in any more military campaigns would be a start) to make the plight of those in other countries not quite so desperate.

Boris can't stand by the coast like Matt Monroe the Great (although Boris has been called something similar by me and others more than once in the past) and expect to stop the those seeking asylum rolling onto our shores. And I have zero time for those whinging about these people being able to claim asylum in the first safe country they come to: no refugee has to claim asylum at the first safe country under the UN's 1951 Refugee Convention. Such an agreement would be absolutely unfair on countries like Greece or Turkey. At least the EU's Dublin Regulation went some way to address that (although that wasn't perfect by any means), but the UK doesn't even have that right now.
 
Nov 15, 2011
1,902
312
BBC News - France scraps UK talks over Johnson migrants letter
Of course they have.

Johnson doesn’t give a damn about the asylum seekers or solving the problem, only his own popularity and this morning’s Sun/Express/Mail/Telegraph headlines.

Going in to the most sensitive talks in a position of weakness where you are asking for a favour, you don’t make fantasy demands and publish them on Twitter.

Not that Johnson cares that much, as long as his client journalists portray him as the tough guy against the European meanies it’s job done. A never ending war with the EU is the only way to distract from the fact that Brexit has made everything including control of immigration worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bovey Green lady
May 16, 2016
3,888
234
So France is happy for people to rot away on their own ground (at least the UK make an effort to care for them) or watch them happily sail away towards their own potential deaths at sea, rather than sit down for grown up discussions with our Government because of the contents of a reasonably worded letter that got tweeted ?

Still, they might get some fish out of it.
 
Nov 15, 2011
1,902
312
France who accept 3 times as many asylum seekers as the Uk wanted to sit down and discuss the problem seriously with all countries in Europe affected by the issue.

Instead Johnson tweets ridiculous nonsense about putting U.K. troops on french beaches and unilaterally sending back asylum seekers. Can you just imagine what guiri would say if the roles were reversed, French troops on British beaches and sending asylum seekers back to the U.K.? Would he see that as reasonable? Don’t answer that guiri it’s a rhetorical question.

And as guiri full well knows Johnson’s stupid tweet had nothing to do with caring about asylum seekers, it was about getting some tough boy headlines in his favourite newspapers. And it worked Express today “U.K. to patrol French beaches” How’s that working out lads?

Everyone including guiri knows Johnson isn’t a serious person but when the alternative is to admit you were so easily conned by a clown well that’s not so easy.
 
May 16, 2016
3,888
234
France who accept 3 times as many asylum seekers as the Uk wanted to sit down and discuss the problem seriously with all countries in Europe affected by the issue.

Instead Johnson tweets ridiculous nonsense about putting U.K. troops on french beaches and unilaterally sending back asylum seekers. Can you just imagine what guiri would say if the roles were reversed, French troops on British beaches and sending asylum seekers back to the U.K.? Would he see that as reasonable? Don’t answer that guiri it’s a rhetorical question.

And as guiri full well knows Johnson’s stupid tweet had nothing to do with caring about asylum seekers, it was about getting some tough boy headlines in his favourite newspapers. And it worked Express today “U.K. to patrol French beaches” How’s that working out lads?

Everyone including guiri knows Johnson isn’t a serious person but when the alternative is to admit you were so easily conned by a clown well that’s not so easy.
And all them CORBA Meetings what he missed.

The 'Guiri' might not have voted for him or been conned by anybody. He might even have been actively involved in housing refugees and know a bit about it.

Edited to add: Of course there's no pressure on Macron these days, no fishing issues or elections looming is there ?
 
Nov 15, 2011
1,902
312
Yes Macron has got the added pressure of an imminent election, what's Johnson's excuse for the nationalist guff?

I assume Guiri voted for him because he endlessly defends the clown no matter how corrupt, dishonest, cowardly and embarrassing he behaves. And whether or not Guiri has been involved in housing refugees has zero to do with what we are discussing ie Johnson's crass inept behaviour in caring not a jot for asylum seekers and s serious approach to the issue, but only in getting a favourable splash on the front page of the Express no matter how many more lives it costs.
 

Frank Butcher

Foodbank Donor
Oct 9, 2003
3,612
64
Gairloch
Trying to set aside the issue of economic migration (a symptom of globalisation), I’ve always believed that anyone in fear of their safety should surely feel protected in the nearest safe haven.

If you’re an asylum seeker can there be any justification to travel further than a safe place? And if you do, do you then become an economic migrant by default?

This to me is the crux of the problem - why these unfortunate people feel the need to risk their lives, and placing themselves in the hands of god knows who, by typically yomping through half of Europe just to reach the UK.

France doesn’t want the responsibility and therefore make their conditions as unbearable as possible. Then the combination of a little English language knowledge and the promise of fair treatment sees them take life threatening risks to reach our shores.

The only solution I can see is to create proper safe harbours in countries that neighbour dictatorships etc. and do it properly this time. The EU, UK and others should work together, invest sufficiently and give these poor people a life closer to home. In the end that investment would be wise given the costs associated with accommodating asylum seekers and the inherent risks to the people themselves. Any other options simply address the symptoms, not the cause.

Otherwise it will never stop.
 
Nov 15, 2011
1,902
312
Trying to set aside the issue of economic migration (a symptom of globalisation), I’ve always believed that anyone in fear of their safety should surely feel protected in the nearest safe haven.

If you’re an asylum seeker can there be any justification to travel further than a safe place? And if you do, do you then become an economic migrant by default?

This to me is the crux of the problem - why these unfortunate people feel the need to risk their lives, and placing themselves in the hands of god knows who, by typically yomping through half of Europe just to reach the UK.

France doesn’t want the responsibility and therefore make their conditions as unbearable as possible. Then the combination of a little English language knowledge and the promise of fair treatment sees them take life threatening risks to reach our shores.

The only solution I can see is to create proper safe harbours in countries that neighbour dictatorships etc. and do it properly this time. The EU, UK and others should work together, invest sufficiently and give these poor people a life closer to home. In the end that investment would be wise given the costs associated with accommodating asylum seekers and the inherent risks to the people themselves. Any other options simply address the symptoms, not the cause.

Otherwise it will never stop.
Wholly incorrect Frank, France takes responsibility for 3 times more than us, we only take 3% of European asylum seekers, and most of those that arrive in France prefer to stay there. People swallow the right wing press nonsense so easily without doing just a little bit of research.

We just don't take our fair share. Under your suggestion where they went to the first safe country, we wouldn't take any asylum seekers at all even though we are more responsible for the plight of those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria than any other European country. No wonder Macron gets peed off with Johnson publishing letters to him on Twitter before actually sending them to him. Letters of entitled drivel that he knows are unacceptable - except to the Express and Torygraph.
 
May 16, 2016
3,888
234
Trying to set aside the issue of economic migration (a symptom of globalisation), I’ve always believed that anyone in fear of their safety should surely feel protected in the nearest safe haven.

If you’re an asylum seeker can there be any justification to travel further than a safe place? And if you do, do you then become an economic migrant by default?

This to me is the crux of the problem - why these unfortunate people feel the need to risk their lives, and placing themselves in the hands of god knows who, by typically yomping through half of Europe just to reach the UK.

France doesn’t want the responsibility and therefore make their conditions as unbearable as possible. Then the combination of a little English language knowledge and the promise of fair treatment sees them take life threatening risks to reach our shores.

The only solution I can see is to create proper safe harbours in countries that neighbour dictatorships etc. and do it properly this time. The EU, UK and others should work together, invest sufficiently and give these poor people a life closer to home. In the end that investment would be wise given the costs associated with accommodating asylum seekers and the inherent risks to the people themselves. Any other options simply address the symptoms, not the cause.

Otherwise it will never stop.
I agree, the Syrian families (or truthfully, the surviving and scarred members of them) that I've helped, came via the old resettlement schemes from Lebanon. They were flown to and rehoused in the UK.

A similar joint new EU / UK scheme might work and allow 'processing' in a third party Country prior to onward travel to whichever Country would accept them. A NATO run and protected area might reassure them enough not to hand over all their cash or become indebted to the gangs that are affecting policy now, before trekking across the globe.

As you say, In an ideal world, we'd assist and encourage settlement in a place and environment near or back in their home country. The end of war and fighting being the fly in that ointment.

We also need to stop whatever promises are being sold to them, they are well looked after in the UK by comparison to where they are starting from, but I'd like to know what they are told they will welcome them when they get here, both physically and emotionally.

Ignoring the political theatrics of all involved and the endless pasted and predictable anti Government commenting, the PM may have been performing to his own gallery but then French would do well to stop doing the same to theirs.

Meanwhile as people continue to shiver in the French countryside, literally under the noses of the French authoritirs, lives remain literally at stake, some of us worry more about that than how many go where and when or make petty assumptions on who reads what.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frank Butcher
May 16, 2016
3,888
234
Yes Macron has got the added pressure of an imminent election, what's Johnson's excuse for the nationalist guff?

I assume Guiri voted for him because he endlessly defends the clown no matter how corrupt, dishonest, cowardly and embarrassing he behaves. And whether or not Guiri has been involved in housing refugees has zero to do with what we are discussing ie Johnson's crass inept behaviour in caring not a jot for asylum seekers and s serious approach to the issue, but only in getting a favourable splash on the front page of the Express no matter how many more lives it costs.
Apolgies.

I thought the discussion was about the tragic loss of lives of refugees trying to reach the UK. I naturally assumed it wasn't 'yet another' drift into attacking the Government and Boris Johnson. We'd understand and sympathise if he really was your Stepdad and you really were the angry teenage son who blames him for the divorce and every ill since then, some of us have been there too, some possibly on both sides. I guess he and you aren't in that situation but forgive us for thinking that's how you come across.

Once again, apologies, I've obviously got my priorities wrong. I won't trouble you again.