Are Calais Migrants OUR Problem?

[L00b 441]

1 hour ago, ab6262 said:

the migrants should be their problem not ours! they are on french territory first ?

No, they are not.
 

Afghani migrants are on Pakistani or Iranian territory first. Maybe check refugee statistics for these 2 countries.

 

Syrians are on Turkish territory first. Maybe check refugee statistics for that country.

 

Etc.

 

All put aside the fact, that no asylum seeker is obligated to seek asylum in the first safe country that they reach, under any treaty or convention.

 

So you see, by the time some migrants get to Calais, hell-bent on getting to the UK, they are at least as much the UK’s problem, as France’s and anyone else’s.
 

Now, if you are still amongst those who think that migrants are France’s problem alone, then really you’re just after a free immigration management lunch at the French taxpayer’s expense.
 

In which case, I’d ask again: why should “the French and french/eu sympathisers give a ****” about gifting the UK a free immigration management lunch?

 

Just  because some Brits who don’t like brown faces are asking?
 

Well, ranting and raving and calling the French names (etc) isn’t a particularly smart way to go about it, now, is it?

Edited November 30, 2021 by L00b

[carosio 186]

3 hours ago, L00b said:

Because, far from being ‘gangsters running protection rackets’, France is only lending a hand policing the GB ‘border’ in Calais under the Le Touquet Agreement. As I’ve long explained (but which you studiously avoid to even acknowledge), were it not for this LTA, France would be under zero obligation, in law or in fact, to police anything leaving its shore, bound for the UK or wherever else, and the UK would have to take back (full) control of its (actual) border.

Meaning you’d get the whole supply of migrants who want to reach the UK, unhindered, and then, well, HMBF can do its stuff, under the UK’s own sovereign immigration law and policy, at its border. You understand jurisdictions, and borders, and law, and due process, right? I know they’re quite inconvenient to xenophobes and other dinghy would-be torpedoers, but well, this is the 21st century, you have to face facts and reality some time.

 

 

I'd gladly admit to being mistaken, but I think there are French regulations which forbid the launching/ navigation of seaboats or craft from French territory if they do not fulfill specific requirements for seaworthiness, which obviously none are. If that is the case, then those policemen would be neglecting their duty under French law  irrespective of any subsidy from the UK.

[L00b 441]

10 minutes ago, carosio said:

I'd gladly admit to being mistaken, but I think there are French regulations which forbid the launching/ navigation of seaboats or craft from French territory if they do not fulfill specific requirements for seaworthiness, which obviously none are. If that is the case, then those policemen would be neglecting their duty under French law  irrespective of any subsidy from the UK.

Not to my knowledge.

There is ample legislation about ownership, registration, qualification and minimum equipment, in each of 4 categories (A-D, ranked in increasing order of seaworthiness, which is dependent on boat power, navigation type and sea state) and ample legislation about penalties in case these are not respected (depending on by who (owner or skipper) and when (typically, after a rescue caused by not respecting the equipment / boat category unfit for sea state at the time).

 

But no legislation forbidding launching and navigation. Otherwise (re bit in black), you’d never even see a sea kayak or pedalo off the beach.

[ab6262 202]

2 hours ago, L00b said:

No, they are not.
 

Afghani migrants are on Pakistani or Iranian territory first. Maybe check refugee statistics for these 2 countries.

 

Syrians are on Turkish territory first. Maybe check refugee statistics for that country.

 

Etc.

 

All put aside the fact, that no asylum seeker is obligated to seek asylum in the first safe country that they reach, under any treaty or convention.

 

So you see, by the time some migrants get to Calais, hell-bent on getting to the UK, they are at least as much the UK’s problem, as France’s and anyone else’s.
 

Now, if you are still amongst those who think that migrants are France’s problem alone, then really you’re just after a free immigration management lunch at the French taxpayer’s expense.
 

In which case, I’d ask again: why should “the French and french/eu sympathisers give a ****” about gifting the UK a free immigration management lunch?

 

Just  because some Brits who don’t like brown faces are asking?
 

Well, ranting and raving and calling the French names (etc) isn’t a particularly smart way to go about it, now, is it?

here we go clutching at straws ok i should have said europe as a first country as they sure dont want more of the same in Syria, turkey pakistan or iranian soil thats what they are running from and i dont really care about statistics for that country.

they are not asylum seekers but you dont get that do you.

they should never have been the uk problem but thanks to you cheese eating surrender monkeys who cant do anything but stand by and watch people go to their deaths in death trap boats.

 

as for immigration management france needs to sort its borders.

 

ah and there it is the racist card, nothing to do with common sense eh looby loo

 

[harvey19 541]

Just a thought but what if the whole population of a country decided to come to the Uk without permission or documents would we be able to stop them under current  practice.

[butlers 261]

So what do we make of the protesters stopping the Hasting lifeboat putting to sea as " they" object to the work in the channel.

RNLI confirmed the story that they were delayed and the police have been informed

[altus 540]

2 hours ago, West 77 said:

There were only 10 members of EU in 1985 that included the UK and Ireland who have never been in the Schengen area.  Have a look at a map of the EU consisting of 27 members and compare it today with a map of the EU in 1985.  Have a look at the areas most likely to see economic migrants enter the EU today.  Common sense tells me it's much easier for economic migrants to enter the EU today in 2021 than it was in 1985.

Let's be clear to start of with. Most of the people who come to the UK by boat are asylum seekers not economic refugees. Under international treaties which the UK is signed up to asylum seekers are not obliged to claim asylum in the first country they get to, nor are they required to claim asylum in any other countries they may pass through before they get to the country they do claim asylum in. The fact that the majority of them are granted asylum by the UK proves that the UK government accepts they are asylum seekers even if you disagree.

 

Do you not think that the removal of the iron curtain might have had more to do with how many people were able to pass to Western Europe from former Soviet block countries? It's worth noting that those coming across from North Africa have never aimed for those former Soviet block countries.

 

It has a longer border now - there's obviously going to be more opportunities to enter the EU by crossing a longer border. It neither enables nor prevents people from crossing a border by walking across a few fields so it does nothing to support your dislike of Schengen.

[ads36 219]

24 minutes ago, West 77 said:

the EU should respond to the different World by scrapping the Schengen Area and make EU members responsible for controlling their own borders again.

so we're now demanding the EU change (remove) some of their fundamental freedoms, to further reduce our exposure to a tiny fraction of a massive global issue?

 

that's obviously not going to happen.

 

i thought we were taking back control?

[Carbuncle 0]

What I 'love' (actually hate) is how so many Daily Mail facts and so many Daily Mail terms have entered the discussion of the asylum situation. For example, status as an"economic migrant" is not a thing that bears on someones right to claim asylum nor is "illegal migrant". In order to make it possible for such ideas to bear on the matter the UK would have to actually  withdraw from treaties. Our politicians don't want to withdraw from treaties we're committed to because British governments actually believes in International Law, have contributed a great deal to its building up and do not want to undermine it. The politicians like to talk tough but when they do so they are being deceitful.

 

When Priti Patel talks about sending people back, it's all a lot of hot air for the Daily-Mail-etariat. She'll proceed with some half-ar*ed measure knowing that the courts are going to find she has acted unlawfully and she'll be told to stop what she was doing which is what she expected all along. The thing she was doing was all for show anyway. Once the courts have stepped in, she'll act defiant and make nasty comments about the courts. The judges will obey convention and not respond. It's only the Daily-Mail-etariat that will be fooled, for the rest of us it's all just theatre. She will have played to her base and made precisely no contribution to solving any actual problem with all her tough talk.

 

For those who dislike asylum seeker immigration, our dysfunctional asylum system can only possibly contribute in one way and that is through deterring future migration. In every other way, it is just a bizarre combination of expense, incompetence and nastiness. Speaking against the effectiveness of deterrence is that despite the excruciating awfulness faced by those who seek asylum in Britain, asylum seekers keep coming. Personally, I don't mind taking a few extras with dubious claims to asylum to make sure we help those who are genuinely deserving but for those who dislike asylum seeker immigration, do you have any actual evidence that making things tougher for asylum seekers will actually reduce the numbers in a meaningful way?

Edited November 30, 2021 by Carbuncle

[altus 540]

1 minute ago, West 77 said:

More illogical nonsense.  Asylum seekers are economic migrants.  When the Schengen agreement was originally signed it wasn't a big problem because the members were low and based in mainly in Western Europe. The expansion of the EU has created the economic migration problem because of the Schengren agreement. In 1985 there was no such thing as mobile phones and the internet which help the economic migrants to make contact with criminal gangs who arrange the illegal crossing. It's a different World today from when the Schengen Area was originally created and the EU should respond to the different World by scrapping the Schengen Area and make EU members responsible for controlling their own borders again.

It is a different world today. Mobile phones and the internet[1] work both ways. People are far more easily tracked and traced than they were previously.

 

Here a question for you so you can demonstrate you know what you are objecting to. When can people in the Schengen area be required to show their ID?

 

 

[1] Both of which did exist in 1985 although admittedly they weren't as easily available as now.

[Cyclecar 24]

There are no easy answers. 

 

What I don't like are politicians on all sides treating this as a virility test. Priti Patel keeps making tough proposals which we all know will never be implemented. President Macron is in the early stages of a Presidential election and wants to come across as decisive and in charge. Which he isn't. 

 

The only people who have got their act togtether are the criminal traffickers. They have got slick, well run systems for getting their customers on to the beach just in time, sourcing craft and outboards, and setting them off without disturbance. The gendarmerie sometimes just look on. They know the legal loopholes, use modern communications, and bank their takings with impunity. They make the UK and French governments seem infantile. 

 

I don't want to sound harsh, but the draw for these poor souls to come to the UK is join family, and/or a better future. So it would perhaps be of benefit to turn down the 'magnet'. Our labour laws and residence qualifications are looser than anywhere in the EU, and we have a sizeable (and apparently growing) black economy - should we do something about it? 

 

Finally, they are not escaping a cruel and oppressive regime. They are escaping a decent, somewhat thinly populated, democratic country. It's called France. 
 

[Mister M 1,625]

1 hour ago, West 77 said:

More illogical nonsense.  Asylum seekers are economic migrants.  When the Schengen agreement was originally signed it wasn't a big problem because the members were low and based in mainly in Western Europe. The expansion of the EU has created the economic migration problem because of the Schengren agreement. In 1985 there was no such thing as mobile phones and the internet which help the economic migrants to make contact with criminal gangs who arrange the illegal crossing. It's a different World today from when the Schengen Area was originally created and the EU should respond to the different World by scrapping the Schengen Area and make EU members responsible for controlling their own borders again.

According to Home Office data two-thirds of people who migrate to the UK in small boats are deemed to be genuine refugees and allowed to remain.

Most people who risk Channel boat crossings are refugees – report | Immigration and asylum | The Guardian