UK will finally off shore illegal asylum seekers crossing the channel

yeah ok. good lad. lets move on now please.

We're a soft touch ,

80,000 through DP over the 25+ years,we supposedly have a 75% refusal rate yet in the last 25+ years we have only deported 1400 individuals ,

We don't track failed asylum seekers,and have no real mechanisms to hold and deport failed asylum seekers,we do offer near unlimited appeals and unlimited free legal aid ,

We now have a influx of immigrants believing they are entitled to protection under the illegal immigrants amnesty,

Tell us how we are not a soft touch

what do you want to know?

can't believe you're still laboring this dead end by the way.

Ok so why are there 3000 people (mostly young men) living here with nothing to show who they are and where they came from.

I take it you agree they should never have been let into the country in the first place.

Ok. So what do you want from me?

I never had such a plan. Just a 'wish'.

Although in theory I suppose France could choose multiple segments of the coast to place restrictions on. And has abundant assets with which to do so.

Intense restrictions would only really be needed towards the eastern end of the north coast for maximum affect, mostly in the vicinity of Calais. And around Cherbourg. As you move west the channel widens significantly and becomes very unsuitable for dinghys. The journey time also increases dramatically meaning the odds of being caught increase.

Such restrictions wouldnt have any real basis of complaint in international law. As one person mentioned. Just domestic policy outlawing access to these particilar beaches and waters, which just so happen to be in the best spots for illegal emigration, and just happen to be extremely vast in some cases.

As I pointed out this is already the case with certain beaches in France which are off limits for ecological reasons. Although other justifications for turning people back are available too.

Thats about all.

Ehh because theres a rising number of fatalities.

And an ongoing trend of lawlessness, along with the arrival locally of characters associated with the world of organized crime, drug smuggling and people trafficking. And probably some extremists thrown in there too, the odd serial rapist ... who knows really.

We can but hope.

That fewer people would perish in dark icy waters.

The roads are a necessity, and under relative control.

Smugglers transporting unknown people across maritime borders arent needed, or presently under any proper control.

If I were a local of Calais I wouldnt be in any way aggrevated by the arrival of a govt response to this chaos. Quite the opposite.

Sometimes you have to spend a little now rather than a lot later. This chaos wont stop itself, so France has two choices, just let it spiral or exercise territorial control.

One day itll all get too big, therell be a murder, a scandal and an outcry. Then a complete teardown of the people smuggling industry in the region. And thats why my wish is not entirely fantasy.

why stop with just a UK asylum application center.

we could have a UK asylum application center, attached to a Morocco asylum application center, a Lebanon asylum application center, an Israel asylum application center, and a Egypt asylum application center, and a Jordan asylum application center. And so on. Kazakhstan, etc.

That way, if you get turned down by the UK you can just claim asylum somewhere else.

But we know they won't respect that. That they'll just hop in a dinghy for UK. Because they don't respect other peoples wishes.

And thats why you need to physically prevent them.

Sure I do.

Its just not my only concern. Unlike some I have both a mind and a heart.

Its in France's own self interest. Of the immigrants entering France a certain percentage will be there only to use France as a stepping stone to the UK. Tightening controls on the option of hopping across the channel would reduce the feasibility of that option and the associated costs of dealing with the channel migrants in pas de calais and dunkirk. (where they've caused all sorts of issues).

Of course UK needs to do its bit too to eradicate this tragic industry of cross channel people smuggling, and the Rwanda policy is the most practical step they've taken. Good for them, about time. And if they're further down the chart then thats what others should be aiming for. Invert that chart. Make it a leaderboard.

The UK tabloids are azzholes. And yes this is essentially a UK problem, France just happens to be the route taken by the clandestine migrants.

But patrolling and stopping the dinghys is far, far from impossible. Most leave from the Calais area. Beyond 50km either side of Calais the channel widens significantly.

(from about 40km at Calais to Dover to an average of about 140km average across the channel, with Cherbourg the next closest point at about 90km)

France easily has the resources to stop the dinghys, especially if UKs navy and Frontex assist.

And there are civilians who keep an eye on the situation. (calaisiens en colere). And commercial ships already report them regularly, and its the busiest shipping lane in Europe.

Night time just means heat sensitive optics make it easy to pick them out.

The means are definitely there. The will just isn't. Its politics.

Or effective borders. Effective repatriation. An appropriate welfare system. And an inflight magazine called 'back you go'. 101 other ""asylum"" locations.

Also in this edition, Dubai; home of yachts, billionaires and the worlds tallest skyscrapers. Egypts new $45 billion city project. India's space program launches domestic suborbital rocket. Top 10 African megacities with populations over 5 million; they can make it, why cant you.

Humanitarian assistance is more efficient for more people when applied in their country of origin. Or in similar cultures. Let them have asylum in their neighboring countries. Asylum shouldn't be a question of pick your favorite.

So you were just rambling then. Glad you cleared that up.

What abundant resources are you referring to? What resources do you think it requires to actually implement a shut down of massive stretches of coastline.

If you did actually shut down the easier places to launch from, do you believe that they will just stop?

Getting caught on the water is only an issue if returned to France. So the width of channel isn't really an issue in that regard.

The whole place is an issue for overloaded dinghys as it is

beaches being closed for ecological reasons is irrelevant to people crossing the channel. Placing restrictions are pointless. If you want to shut down beaches to people launching from them. They need permanent constant persistent patrols. Which would require massive amounts of manpower and funding.

Plan B is Ascension Island