How do you stop the migrants crossing the channel

[Confusion of VIs]

19 minutes ago, Insane said:

No we are still in the UN convention.

You miss answering again. Why did France not process the people in accordance with the Convention ? 

The UN convention allows people to transit countries to reach the country they want to claim asylum in, it was an EU agreement, the Dublin convention, that enabled them to be returned to their EU country of entry.

That deal fell away when we left, hence all the dinghies/

So the answer to your question is quite simple no dinghies (as why risk your life crossing the channel when you could be put on the next boat back to France, or if known their country of first entry).  

[IMHAL]

1 hour ago, Insane said:

No your the ignorant one who cannot answer a question which was what would be happening in the Channel now if we had not left the EU ? 

What was happening before...not much.

[IMHAL]

44 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

The UN convention allows people to transit countries to reach the country they want to claim asylum in, it was an EU agreement, the Dublin convention, that enabled them to be returned to their EU country of entry.

That deal fell away when we left, hence all the dinghies/

So the answer to your question is quite simple no dinghies (as why risk your life crossing the channel when you could be put on the next boat back to France, or if known their country of first entry).  

Why does one have to explain it as to a 4 year old? Amazed at the ignorance on display.

[Insane]

1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

That deal fell away when we left, hence all the dinghies/

No go back and look at the link you posted it said they should be processed in the first country of the EU they enter , so if that was France France should have processed them not let them leave France by the Channel. 

1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

So the answer to your question is quite simple no dinghies (as why risk your life crossing the channel when you could be put on the next boat back to France, or if known their country of first entry).  

No again see above. 

[Insane]

20 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

Why does one have to explain it as to a 4 year old? Amazed at the ignorance on display.

The 4 year old being you. 

[Insane]

21 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

Why does one have to explain it as to a 4 year old? Amazed at the ignorance on display.

The 4 year old being you. 

[IMHAL]

2 minutes ago, Insane said:

The 4 year old being you. 

It's not me who doesn't understand the basics behind the issues mate. Try reading something other than the Daily Hate and The Express comic.

[Insane]

4 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

It's not me who doesn't understand the basics behind the issues mate. Try reading something other than the Daily Hate and The Express comic.

I do I read the below I suggest you do the same.  

The Dublin regulation – explained

[dugsbody]

1 hour ago, Insane said:

No we are still in the UN convention.

You miss answering again. Why did France not process the people in accordance with the Convention ? 

I'm not sure if your statement is even true, but for a practical answer, the reason is their voters don't want them to.

Previously, I imagine the French had some incentive, via the Dublin agreement, and by virtue of being partners in the EU, to keep the British somewhat mollified. Those incentives no longer exist.

The result is as you'd expect.

 

[Confusion of VIs]

35 minutes ago, Insane said:

No go back and look at the link you posted it said they should be processed in the first country of the EU they enter , so if that was France France should have processed them not let them leave France by the Channel. 

No again see above. 

Processing can consist of asking them do they want to claim asylum in the EU. If they answer "no we are in transit to a third country" they are allowed to proceed. 

Why do you think the dinghies suddenly appeared.

 

[Insane]

37 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

Previously, I imagine the French had some incentive, via the Dublin agreement, and by virtue of being partners in the EU, to keep the British somewhat mollified. Those incentives no longer exist.

So the French treat the Asylum Seekers like Garbage tipping them out into the Channel. Yet people in the UK are the bad guys according to many on here.  

[Insane]

26 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Processing can consist of asking them do they want to claim asylum in the EU. If they answer "no we are in transit to a third country" they are allowed to proceed. 

No the French ignore the Dublin Regulation and pass the problem on to the UK. 

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, Insane said:

No the French ignore the Dublin Regulation and pass the problem on to the UK. 

Of course they do, we are no longer covered by the convention. 

Why should France have to deal with refugees wanting to claim asylum in the UK. You seem to be convinced that we get more than our fair share of asylum seekers despites facts saying otherwise.

Quote

In the year ending June 2021, Germany received the highest number of asylum applicants (113,625) in the EU+, followed by France (87,180). When compared with the EU+ for the year ending June 2021, the UK received the 4th largest number of applicants (37,235).

If our government really cared about people smuggling, wouldn't it be far better if they just put them on a ferry for processing in Dover. After all almost every other country in Europe has to deal with their own asylum seekers. 

[Insane]

16 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Of course they do, we are no longer covered by the convention. 

I think you need to read that Dublin Regulation you posted under the regulations as France is an EU country they have a responsibility to process the Asylum Seekers not fob them off on a dangerous journey to a country that is not part of the EU and the Dublin Regulation. 

The people in charge of the Dublin Regulation need to take issue with France, maybe this is the way forward not putting peoples lives at risk in the channel. 

20 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

You seem to be convinced that we get more than our fair share of asylum seekers despites facts saying otherwise.

Seem ? Where have I said anything comparing our numbers with any other country ? 

21 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

If our government really cared about people smuggling, wouldn't it be far better if they just put them on a ferry for processing in Dover. After all almost every other country in Europe has to deal with their own asylum seekers. 

What pick them up in France and bring them to Dover ?

A taxi service ?

From what we are seeing France is not dealing with their asylum seekers they are pushing them on to a country outside of the EU and outside of the Dublin Regulation. 

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, Insane said:

I think you need to read that Dublin Regulation you posted under the regulations as France is an EU country they have a responsibility to prl aocess the Asylum Seekers not fob them off on a dangerous journey to a country that is not part of the EU and the Dublin Regulation. 

Outside of the Dublin agreement countries the UN conventions applies. This allows refugees to cross countries to make their claim in their preferred country. 

1 hour ago, Insane said:

The people in charge of the Dublin Regulation need to take issue with France, maybe this is the way forward not putting peoples lives at risk in the channel. 

What can France do, these people refuse to claim asylum in France.    

1 hour ago, Insane said:

Seem ? Where have I said anything comparing our numbers with any other country ? 

You seem to think we are getting too many.

1 hour ago, Insane said:

What pick them up in France and bring them to Dover ?

A taxi service ?

Yes. To provide a legal route to claim asylum in the UK. The government keeps saying they want to provide legal routes. Instead they try to hide behind the channel while crying crocodile tears over the deaths this causes.   

 

1 hour ago, Insane said:

From what we are seeing France is not dealing with their asylum seekers they are pushing them on to a country outside of the EU and outside of the Dublin Regulation. 

They are dealing with all of those who wish to claim asylum in France.

[MonsieurCopperCrutch]

1 hour ago, Insane said:

Seem ? Where have I said anything comparing our numbers with any other country ? 

Aww bless. I really do feel sorry for gullible clowns like you. 

[Bob8]

10 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Processing can consist of asking them do they want to claim asylum in the EU. If they answer "no we are in transit to a third country" they are allowed to proceed. 

Why do you think the dinghies suddenly appeared.

Yes.

I mean even Insane knows the processing in France would answer the actual question.

There is apparent dishonesty, if not lying that deliberately saying untrue things in order to mislead.

[winkie]

9 hours ago, Insane said:

So the French treat the Asylum Seekers like Garbage tipping them out into the Channel. Yet people in the UK are the bad guys according to many on here.  

Not mutually exclusive.

[debtlessmanc]

6 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Outside of the Dublin agreement countries the UN conventions applies. This allows refugees to cross countries to make their claim in their preferred country. 

You are disingenuous too. You are pro open borders- go on admit it. You are essentially saying that anyone who is be persecuted can move to whichever country they want. Please be honest with us. To give an idea, in most of Africa homosexuality is forbidden, around 5-10% of humans are gay. This means there are around 200m people who have the absolute right (according to you) to claim asylum on that basis in the U.K. I am not asking your opinion on whether they will or not. I am asking a matter of principle. In your opinion those 200m could choose to claim asylum in the U.K. if they wished.

The modern western world is afflicted by a curious kind of secular Puritanism where there are moral questions that some people believe have theoreticallly totally pure answers. Meanwhile those that hold those views turn a total blind eye to the utterly absurd consequences.

Corbyn was the messiah of this group in the U.K.

Edited April 17, 2022 by debtlessmanc

[debtlessmanc]

46 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

mean even Insane knows the processing in France would answer the actual question

It wouldn't. Those that were processed in France and had their claims rejected would pay smugglers to get the to the U.K. anyway. As the French point out, it is the ease of living without papers in the U.K. that is the real attraction, the draw for others would increase- after all if you get to France after this your chances of getting to the U.K. cheaply will have increased.. I suppose you could pay French police to deport people but it is expensive and unpopular even in France.

 

[Staffsknot]

2 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:

It wouldn't. Those that were processed in France and had their claims rejected would pay smugglers to get the to the U.K. anyway. As the French point out, it is the ease of living without papers in the U.K. that is the real attraction, the draw for others would increase- after all if you get to France after this your chances of getting to the U.K. cheaply will have increased.. I suppose you could pay French police to deport people but it is expensive and unpopular even in France.

 

This is not true as we can deport failed asylum seekers now and do.

If only those coming across in boats are already registered in a system as being failed and have attempted a further illegal attempt then they can be deported quite quickly as the same paperwork exists.

These individuals would have no asylum claim, no access to benefits or housing and not be engaged in claiming anything from the state by way of support. One of the things a lot of the people decrying current immigration policy often cite.

The moment they are detected they can be detained and deported.

Paying a people smuggler to get you to the UK to be asylum processed is no longer necessary for 71% of asylum seekers - who are successful anyway - so that cuts the numbers crossing and business model of the smugglers.

[hotblack42]

Its a lot of pages to go through & I admit I haven't checked, but do we feel that this issue has much of an effect on house prices or the economy?  All of the recent posts seem to be about human rights, politics & law.

Not saying these are not valid points, just that they are not primarily financial.

[Staffsknot]

26 minutes ago, debtlessmanc said:

You are disingenuous too. You are pro open borders- go on admit it. You are essentially saying that anyone who is be persecuted can move to whichever country they want. Please be honest with us. To give an idea, in most of Africa homosexuality is forbidden, around 5-10% of humans are gay. This means there are around 200m people who have the absolute right (according to you) to claim asylum on that basis in the U.K. I am not asking your opinion on whether they will or not. I am asking a matter of principle. In your opinion those 200m could choose to claim asylum in the U.K. if they wished.

The modern western world is afflicted by a curious kind of secular Puritanism where there are moral questions that some people believe have theoreticallly totally pure answers. Meanwhile those that hold those views turn a total blind eye to the utterly absurd consequences.

Corbyn was the messiah of this group in the U.K.

You yourself in an earlier debate, after claiming current open policy would lead to immigrants being 'machine gunned in the sea' later claimed you would give your last crust to a needy refuge and how we should always help the persecuted.

So which is it? Ignore them or help them as you seem conflicted.

Also if the UK elected a right wing religious nutter and the ban on homosexuality returned would you tell your stepson he and his partner have no right to claim asylum against such persecution and need to stay where they are and separate or go to jail?

[Will!]

13 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

The UN convention allows people to transit countries to reach the country they want to claim asylum in, it was an EU agreement, the Dublin convention, that enabled them to be returned to their EU country of entry.

That deal fell away when we left, hence all the dinghies/

So the answer to your question is quite simple no dinghies (as why risk your life crossing the channel when you could be put on the next boat back to France, or if known their country of first entry).  

I didn’t see anything in your link about returning people.  Do you have another?

[debtlessmanc]

17 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

This is not true as we can deport failed asylum seekers now and do.

If only those coming across in boats are already registered in a system as being failed and have attempted a further illegal attempt then they can be deported quite quickly as the same paperwork exists.

These individuals would have no asylum claim, no access to benefits or housing and not be engaged in claiming anything from the state by way of support. One of the things a lot of the people decrying current immigration policy often cite.

There are, by the best estimates, between 500k and 1m illegal migrants in the U.K. that proves that what you say is zero deterrent.

17 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

This is not true as we can deport failed asylum seekers now and do.

If only those coming across in boats are already registered in a system as being failed and have attempted a further illegal attempt then they can be deported quite quickly as the same paperwork exists.

The U.K. deported exactly 7 last year. The migrants know this.

 

I did not advocate shooting people, I expressed opinion that that is the kind of thing a far right govt. something we do not want at all.

12 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Also if the UK elected a right wing religious nutter and the ban on homosexuality returned would you tell your stepson he and his partner have no right to claim asylum against such persecution and need to stay where they are and separate or go to jail?

If that happened in the U.K. I doubt there would be anywhere left to go to. The people in the U.K. with those kind of views are recent migrants by and large anyway.

the highest importance for safe refuge in the world is that those countries that are safe preserve that. The biggest threat is the election of Le Pen type people.

 

Edited April 17, 2022 by debtlessmanc