Migrants crossing from Europe (2 Viewers)

[Grendel]

You’re really not that stupid so why you’re pretending to be so you can impress racist is beyond me.

On the other hand maybe you are that stupid.

Eloquent - you should learn French

 

---

[chiefdave]

I think too many things are being mixed up here. Are people objecting to the method of arrival, the number coming over or the fact that we should not be taking any refugees other than those arriving directly from the country they are fleeing?

 

[Grendel]

What are you suggesting, some kind of dress code?

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

You’re really not that stupid so why you’re pretending to be so you can impress racists is beyond me.

On the other hand maybe you are that stupid.

Maybe you are avoiding his reasonable question because you haven't a clue.

 

[skybluetony176]

Eloquent - you should learn French

You should learn to not pander to racists.

I don’t think a lot of you but I thought more of you than that.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

What are you suggesting, some kind of dress code?

Yes. Coats, hats, jeans . Life jacket .
I think they score extremely well.

 

[COV]

I think too many things are being mixed up here. Are people objecting to the method of arrival, the number coming over or the fact that we should not be taking any refugees other than those arriving directly from the country they are fleeing?

This is what I don't get- is all the bitterness due to:

1. The number of arrivals, which has been ambitiously estimated on here as anything from 1,000 to 3,000 per day
2. The allegations that new arrivals are being given new phones, TVs, designer clothes & Netflix accounts when they get here
3. The fact they're coming in on boats
4. The fact that France aren't turning them back
5. The fact that they're apparently too well dressed & kitted out to be allowed entry
6. The fact they're not using "the proper channels" (but nobody seems to know what they are)

which is it.. or is it all of them?

 

[skybluetony176]

Maybe you are avoiding his reasonable question because you haven't a clue.

The answer has already been stated several times on this one thread alone. I’ll try again if you like. Asylum seekers are under no legal requirements to claim asylum in the first country they land in, they’re aloud to travel to the country where feel safe. If that’s England they’re taking the only route available to them and they can only claim asylum once they are here. You can choose your own opinion but you can’t choose your own facts and they are the facts.

 

[Grendel]

Maybe you are avoiding his reasonable question because you haven't a clue.

Given he admits to voting for a party that wanted to send "them" back you could not make it up really. Its on a level of Harvey "spanking" Proctor who voted against all gay legislation and then was shown to have a curious penchant (bit French) for young men and a bit of caning.

At least Harvey enjoyed having his trousers pulled down I suppose

 

[Grendel]

The answer has already been stated several times on this one thread alone. I’ll try again if you like. Asylum seekers are under no legal requirements to claim asylum in the first country they land in, they’re aloud to travel to the country where feel safe. If that’s England they’re taking the only route available to them and they can only claim asylum once they are here. You can choose your own opinion but you can’t choose your own facts and they are the facts.

They do not feel safe in France then - why? Allergy to snails, bikes, stripy jumpers and berets?

 

[skybluetony176]

They do not feel safe in France then - why? Allergy to snails, bikes, stripy jumpers and berets?

Again with the pandering to racists.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

I think too many things are being mixed up here. Are people objecting to the method of arrival, the number coming over or the fact that we should not be taking any refugees other than those arriving directly from the country they are fleeing?

All three.
I strongly object to people traffickers lining their pockets . The fact is that these people clearly now have a well-oiled mechanism in place and can launch boats from wherever they like, whenever they like.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

Again with the pandering to racists.

Do you think that objecting to these boats is racist ?
Would you be up in arms if they suddenly stopped tomorrow ?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Again with the pandering to racists.

It is a fair question, what’s unsafe about France or indeed most of Western Europe?

 

[PVA]

Perhaps they fancy their chances of getting a job in the UK more than they do in France, due to our reliance on seasonal workers, gig economy etc (no I don't know how this compares to the French economy)? Perhaps they have family here or contacts? Perhaps they speak more English than they do French? Perhaps the English system is easier to navigate? Perhaps as a population we are generally more accepting of asylum seekers?

Can you really think of no reasons why people might want to cross the channel apart from them rubbing their hands together and thinking the UK is a soft touch?

No no no.

It's because they get given a free iPhone, pair of Nike trainers and £100 Nandos card on arrival, silly!

The total lack of understanding of the laws on this topic from the right wingers never ceases to amaze. For something they're so passionate about you'd think they'd be a bit more clued up on the subject.

 

[PVA]

It is a fair question, what’s unsafe about France or indeed most of Western Europe?

There's nothing that says they have to settle in the first country they get to. They can choose to claim asylum wherever they like.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

The answer has already been stated several times on this one thread alone. I’ll try again if you like. Asylum seekers are under no legal requirements to claim asylum in the first country they land in, they’re aloud to travel to the country where feel safe. If that’s England they’re taking the only route available to them and they can only claim asylum once they are here. You can choose your own opinion but you can’t choose your own facts and they are the facts.

How do you define " which feels safe " ?
You and I both know that this is about free handouts .

 

[chiefdave]

I strongly object to people traffickers lining their pockets . The fact is that these people clearly now have a well-oiled mechanism in place and can launch boats from wherever they like, whenever they like.

How do you solve the problem of people traffickers if every country wants to make it as hard as possible for asylum seekers to enter the country?

I'm sure clinging to a dinghy isn't the preferred mode of travel. Hard to tell what percentage of asylum seekers arrive that way as the Home Office don't seem to publish those stats. Unless you're overstaying a legal stay what are the other options, hiding in the back of a lorry?

Is boat preferred as international law means they need to be assisted, quick google says the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1 requires “assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost”.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

No no no.

It's because they get given a free iPhone, pair of Nike trainers and £100 Nandos card on arrival, silly!

The total lack of understanding of the laws on this topic from the right wingers never ceases to amaze. For something they're so passionate about you'd think they'd be a bit more clued up on the subject.

And you are ?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Prior to lockdown I went on record as suggesting that it would be 1000 a week in a year or so and got hammered for it.
So as for 3000, just hang on for another 12 months and then say I was wrong.
In the meantime the traffickers take the money . They must be laughing.

Solution?

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

How do you solve the problem of people traffickers if every country wants to make it as hard as possible for asylum seekers to enter the country?

I'm sure clinging to a dinghy isn't the preferred mode of travel. Hard to tell what percentage of asylum seekers arrive that way as the Home Office don't seem to publish those stats. Unless you're overstaying a legal stay what are the other options, hiding in the back of a lorry?

Is boat preferred as international law means they need to be assisted, quick google says the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1 requires “assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost”.

Very good points, Dave. The sea route and the convention law are clearly being exploited.

 

[skybluetony176]

How do you define " which feels safe " ?
You and I both know that this is about free handouts .

We have one of the worst welfare states in Europe so it clearly isn’t.

 

[COV]

How do you define " which feels safe " ?
You and I both know that this is about free handouts .

There are loads of articles & interviews with the arrivals themselves if you look, family ties seems to be by far the biggest reason for choosing the UK, followed by language and then the way they feel the French system makes it impossible for them to stay there. Do you have any firm facts on what these 'free handouts' actually are?

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

Solution?

Pete , I don't think anyone has a clue.
Stop them before they leave France ? Who is going to do that ?
Stop the traffickers in the first place ? Clearly no one can .
Once they're in the channel maritime law tips the scales in the traffickers favour.
There is currently no solution.

 

[NorthernWisdom]

There are loads of articles & interviews with the arrivals themselves if you look, family ties seems to be by far the biggest reason for choosing the UK, followed by language and then the way they feel the French system makes it impossible for them to stay there. Do you have any firm facts on what these 'free handouts' actually are?

I'd have said the fact we're a liberal, tolerant country with a sense of fair play, that offers refuge to the desperate and disposessed, helps them back on their feet... until I started frequenting this board, anyway. Now I have no clue why they'd want to come here!

Mind you, not like we're desperate to get to Libya, Lebanon etc.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

There's nothing that says they have to settle in the first country they get to. They can choose to claim asylum wherever they like.

I know that. I asked what makes the UK such a big draw.

 

[PVA]

And you are ?

I don't claim to be clued up. But I know they are not 'illegals' which makes me more clued up than some in here!

 

[skybluetony176]

I know that. I asked what makes the UK such a big draw.

It’s like COV said, speaking the language and reunification with other family members are the two biggest reasons. It’s certainly not one of the worst welfare states in Europe as Alan thinks.

 

[COV]

I'd have said the fact we're a liberal, tolerant country with a sense of fair play, that offers refuge to the desperate and disposessed, helps them back on their feet... until I started frequenting this board, anyway. Now I have no clue why they'd want to come here!

Mind you, not like we're desperate to get to Libya, Lebanon etc.

Its all over the place, countless articles & interviews... highlighted bit relates to what you said.

"Refugees who have lost everything due to war or persecution face a daunting task in trying to rebuild their lives. Ask yourself, “If I had to suddenly leave home and everything behind me tomorrow, arriving to a new country without shelter and without work, which country would I go to and why?”

The number one reason we hear for refugees continuing their journey to the UK is that they have family ties here. In fact, this covers at least 50% of cases(1). Family ties run deep, especially when you have lost everything else.

Other factors that people will take into account are more practical, for example if you speak the language you have more chance of being able to find a job and you can navigate everyday tasks like understanding public transport or going shopping.

It is also not an uncommon (and a heartening experience) to hear refugees, often those from Africa, talk with respect about how they see the UK as an icon of democracy, justice and freedom.

There is no legal requirement for a refugee to claim asylum in any particular country. There is a requirement for the first safe country in which they arrive to hear their asylum claim but, if this does not happen for any reason, the refugee is then free to make their asylum claim elsewhere.

There is no reason for the UK to take fewer refugees than other countries in Europe. People in the UK are no less compassionate and we know they want to help. We see this in the thousands of volunteers that come to Calais and those that work hard to help refugees all over the UK."

 

[skyblueinBaku]

The answer has already been stated several times on this one thread alone. I’ll try again if you like. Asylum seekers are under no legal requirements to claim asylum in the first country they land in, they’re aloud to travel to the country where feel safe. If that’s England they’re taking the only route available to them and they can only claim asylum once they are here. You can choose your own opinion but you can’t choose your own facts and they are the facts.

*Allowed

 

[skybluetony176]

Do you think that objecting to these boats is racist ?
Would you be up in arms if they suddenly stopped tomorrow ?

I think pretending to not understand the legal reality is at least pandering to racists.

I wouldn’t be upset if people stopped needing to travel to claim asylum.

 

[jimmyhillsfanclub]

France & the UK offer very similar levels of support to asylum seekers..... basic housing, access to healthcare & about £40 per week....

Clearly those that are risking their lives in a dinghy don't want to claim the french benefits as they see the UK as a better long-term prospect....which frankly it is....but this somewhat blurs the definition between asylum seeker/economic migrant.

The only safe solution I can see is to establish a UK processing centre in France......but that would require common sense & cooperation from the french & UK governments so its never gonna happen.

 

[skybluetony176]

France & the UK offer very similar levels of support to asylum seekers..... basic housing, access to healthcare & about £40 per week....

Clearly those that are risking their lives in a dinghy don't want to claim the french benefits as they see the UK as a better long-term prospect....which frankly it is....but this somewhat blurs the definition between asylum seeker/economic migrant.

The only safe solution I can see is to establish a UK processing centre in France......but that would require common sense & cooperation from the french & UK governments so its never gonna happen.

The last bit I agree with. The only hope of stopping the channel crossing at the hands of criminals is to process asylum seekers in France and move them ourselves.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Pete , I don't think anyone has a clue.
Stop them before they leave France ? Who is going to do that ?
Stop the traffickers in the first place ? Clearly no one can .
Once they're in the channel maritime law tips the scales in the traffickers favour.
There is currently no solution.

Education
Compassion
Europe wide agreements
World wide agreements

We could pay France to stop people travelling but there’s no legal expectation on them to stop people travelling to the uk for asylum. It’s a legacy of english imperialism and the language

There needs to be europe wide , possibly worldwide collaboration on identifying, charging, prosecuting and punishing traffickers. We can’t do it on our own
The overall solutions are actively pursue non violent methods to solve disagreements.
We don’t know we’re born compared to those countries next to countries at war. Look at the figures for Syria. The outcry at settling 200 or so in coventry. And these were people who’d lost family or had been terrorised or tortured the real top level of individuals as judged by the un.

Countries close to Syria taking hundreds of thousands

You are correct though, it’s complex!

There were and probably are too many economic migrants and potentially refugees but talking in broad terms of racism or we are full in the uk, both of which are partly true and partly bollox, mean the debates are stopped at the start.

We need to seek agreement and work from there

So in a situation of war is it expected that there may be legitimate asylum seekers? Yes surely yes??

There are current wars leaving people seeking asylum? Yes surely yes??

The law states that you can seek asylum in a country of your picking? Yes or no?

Now some where we are talking about things that we may or may not agree for different reasons and this is where we should seek agreement as a country, European and worldwide conversation.

As english is the common language across the world people will look to seek asylum here? Yes or no?

We are neither a poor country or full? Yes or no?

We need workers to allow our economic model to work? Yes or no?

We should agree how many asylum cases we can accept? Is this possible?

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

Education
Compassion
Europe wide agreements
World wide agreements

We could pay France to stop people travelling but there’s no legal expectation on them to stop people travelling to the uk for asylum. It’s a legacy of english imperialism and the language

There needs to be europe wide , possibly worldwide collaboration on identifying, charging, prosecuting and punishing traffickers. We can’t do it on our own
The overall solutions are actively pursue non violent methods to solve disagreements.
We don’t know we’re both compared to those countries next to countries at war. Look at the figures for Syria. The outcry at settling 200 or so in coventry. And these were people who’d lost family or had been terrorised or tortured the real top level of individuals as judged by the un.

Countries close to Syria taking hundreds of thousands

You are correct though, it’s complex!

There were and probably are too many economic migrants and potentially refugees but talking in broad terms of racism or we are full in the uk, both of which are partly true and partly mean the debates are stopped at the start.

We need to seek agreement and work from there

So I’m a situation of war is it expected that there may be legitimate asylum seekers? Yes surely yes??

There are current wars leaving people seeking asylum? Yes surely yes??

The law states that you can seek asylum in a country of your picking? Yes or no?

Now some where we are talking about things that we may or may not agree for different reasons and this is where we should seek agreement as a country, European and worldwide conversation.

As english is the common language across the world people will look to seek asylum here? Yes or no?

We are neither a poor country or full? Yes or no?

We need workers to allow our economic model to work? Yes or no?

We should agree how many asylum cases we can accept? Is this possible?

As the song goes " There are moooooore questions than answers." It's an absolute minefield. I think you raise some excellent questions.