But many are crossing legally under international law so why should they be worried about getting caught ?
And it's clearly the border security doing something illegal if they need this protection.
Your 'what the message should be' idea doesn't make much sense though - there is no mechanism to send them back since UK withdrew from the prior agreed mechanism & there is no wish on the French side to take them back. It's effectively just saying that the best-case scenario (from a British pov) is the way it should be.
How about Britain takes as many as wants to come, encourages, organises and facilitates their arrival? That would also be a solution which would stop the gangs and the danger. It would be the best-case scenario from a French pov. And it's as realistic/unrealistic a proposition as yours.
I think it will be the message once they get that bill through parliament and I heard Johnson reiterate it during pmqs yesterday. I don't believe a majority of people in the uk support it though, unless there is polling suggesting otherwise, but it plays well with a certain demographic which is well represented media wise and which both main parties is determinedly courting. So seems a complex picture to me. I guess the question is how many bodies will have to wash up on beaches before even the most stringently anti-migrant begin to think this might not be the way forward?
so what is your solution?
Carry on as is?
then why are they paying vast sums of money to criminal gangs and doing it at night to avoid the French Police?
so your solution is to carry on as we are?
They probably want to reach Britain by daylight.
Insofar as "vast sums of money", it looks like a free for all, unregulated black market. Legalise and Regularise the market to manage the prices.
I have no particular solution.
I was merely pointing out that your preferred solution appears to fit very much with what would be the best possible solution from the pov of the UK. The best possible solution from the French pov appears not to interest you.
I don't think there's any vast sums of money being paid for these sea crossings.
The people getting into the back of poorly ventilated lorries are the ones paying the money.
The dinghy people are very much low budget. They may have paid at the other end to get into South Eastern Europe, but once in Schengen it's very easy to get buses to France, then club together for a dinghy. They may be paying for advice on the best place/time to launch, but I doubt there's any shady gangmasters charging the £5K sums beloved of the tabloids.
Is that what they are all doing is it. You know for a fact they are all doing that ?
There are too many Katie Hopkins types who would love nothing more than seeing the bodies pile up. Normal people can be swayed into some pretty horrible beliefs, it has happened before and could happen again. A poor economy can provide fertile ground for fascism to sprout.
Boris Johnson has said that they want to send them 'overseas' for processing. Some sort of Guantanamo Bay style concentration camp I presume.
He also said in UK Parliament that "we will certainly review the Human Rights system", to loud Tory cheers.
Brexit Britain: Fučk business, the EU, migrants, human rights etc.
27 people literally just died. It wasn't 'bingo, safe and well in the UK' for them.
Those people tried to ring the coast guards of both the French and the UK who both referred them back to each other, leaving them to die.
Something has to be done by both in this, but things are made infinitely more difficult as the UK basically demands France deal with it, which understandably makes them less reluctant to work with the UK on a reasonable solution.
Its also complicated by Brexit. The UK left to have more control over the borders, but now find that the systems designed to find an equitable solution were intra EU country systems. I dare say it would be hard to work with the UK on this given their approach, and behaviour.
Thank god for the RNLI
Solution to what exactly? People risking their lives and, in many cases, dying? According to available statistics, the vast majority of people crossing wish to claim asylum and, indeed, many of them succcesfully do so. What is the moral or practical purpose in having them risking their lives to do so? Why not either give them safe passage or process claims in France or elsewhere?
And i I also believe certain politicians should stop referring to the "migrant crisis" and telling obvious lies about how Britain takes in more migrants than other countries (c.f Sajid Javid onMarr last week for just one example).
What is the UK doing to provide a legal route for these people to make it to the UK? In the absence of that, many of these people will continue to find alternative, illegal routes to the UK.
sorry, what exactly should the UK be doing?
Anyone can apply for a visa and come to the UK
Figure it out.
They want to go to Britain. You're asking the EU and France to sort it out. The most efficient and quickest way is to up the money ie: pay the EU and France to do your laundry.
A solution to thousands of people turning up in Northern France and risking their lives trying to illegally cross in the UK.
I agree that providing a facility to apply for UK asylum in France would be a good idea, but what about the majority of people who aren't entitled to asylum and are simply migrants?
It also begs the question, if they are in France and seeking asylum, why don't they apply in france?
Probably because they have some English, migrants tend to go where they have some of the language.
those 27 people barely made it out of Calais before their boat sunk and tragically, if nothing changes then this will happen again.
The UK isn't so much demanding that France deal with it, as say this can not be dealt with by the UK, as it isn't their problem until the migrants cross in to British waters.
The number of people attempting to cross hasn't increased suddenly, it is that security at Calais improving to the point that people can not smuggle themselves on board trucks an more, so are resorting to other methods of getting tot he UK. Britain and France worked together to resolve one problem, but it just created another.
Migrants?
I thought they were asylum seekers
A month ago Priti Patel claimed that 70% of those crossing were single men who were merely economic migrants. Yet, from available statistics, we know that 98% of those crossing apply for asylum, over 60% of applications from the top 10 countries of origin are successful at first go while 60% of appeals are also successful. It's funny Patel could have been so wrong as those figures are based on Home Office data that was made available through FOI. The view that the "majority" are economic migrants is not backed up by data, quite the reverse.
I would imagine there might be a raft of reasons why they don't want to remain in France, but family is clearly one of the principle ones:
In a survey of 402 people at the former Calais "Jungle" camp, researchers from the International Health journal found only 12% wanted to remain in France, while 82% planned to go to England.
Of those that wanted to travel to England more than half (52%), said they already had a family member there.
"They have a connection to the UK, they speak some English, they have family, they have friends and people in their networks. They want to come and stay and rebuild their lives," says Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council."
Uk government figures 30% are migrants. 70% Asylum.
Well if you set up an asylum system in France or better yet in North Africa then the chances that the ones coming across on dinghys being actually illegal immigrants and not refugees goes up significantly and I would then maybe agree with a hard stance on channel crossing migrants.
But that ifs and maybe talk. The reality is the UK have not done this but still want to let people die
People migrating. Whether they be economic migrants or people seeking asylum, i don't know.
Does anybody know if the UK ever did pay the £55 million it promised France to help pay for stopping people from making the crossing?
Back in July they promised it: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/20/uk-french-border-patrols-migrant-clampdown-priti-patel
But according to the French last Oct, not one cent was received. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/france-dover-border-force-priti-patel-french-b959704.html
What the UK should be doing is not trying to pass yet another Bill that contravenes international law.
Britain had an agreement in place to return migrants. Seems that arrangement did not sit well, hence Brexit. So now what's the problem? Brexit got done.
Is launching a boat off a UK beach illegal? Why should launching a boat of the French coast be treated any differently?
Again, lots of what the U.K. shouldn’t be doing, but not what they should do (with the usual rhetoric thrown in for good measure).
France is obliged to record the details of anyone entering or leaving the Schengen zone for starters. Then there’s the whole turning a blind eye to illegal immigration thing, which isn’t exactly neighbourly. Just ask the EU how they feel about the antics going on at the Poland/Belarus border.
The UK should be processing the asylum claims in the UK. They have no other (legal) avenue to go down.
Returning them to France is, in essence, invading the country. They can not do it unilaterally.
SNIP. Don't derail the thread please.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/284f2526e18ff7e4c08066f9ed850ed0.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7a1d0f49d56f52d3cfb2145c5b8cbe5a.svg)
