Immigration

[Theatrics]

"As was discussed in last night's 'Question Time', one solution would be to place processing centres across Europe, to assess whether or not an individual qualifies for asylum. Then provide safe passage to Britain.

Disqualify anyone who doesn't go through those channels."

I agree but that wouldn't stop illegal immigration, the applicants who were denied asylum would revert to buying a dinghy and crossing the channel anyway.

[local]

Yes of course.
I ask again, why do you think Johnson made it public? It's only to fool people like you.
He is right, isn't he because you fall for all the cliches you have quoted.
And you are determined to ignore the facts in favour of xenophobic tropes. Which includes your naivety that it would be just Macron playing political games; Johnson does exactly the same, but badly.
These people are breaking no laws in France.
And France has demonstrated just as much concern about saving them as we have.
This is just one of the many incidents we can look forward to as a consequence of our stupid departure from the EU . Demanding co-operation from an organisation we have just left acrimoniously is not going to work.

Macron has an election with the ghastly Le Pen gaining ground.

Just give me a clue as to how Boris Johnson has "fooled" me or anyone else and why me and not you?

What on earth has Brexit got to do with it?

Might I remind those who hang on to EU membership with rose tinted glasses that we had to help and pay the French with security during our membership of the EU .


2015.

Calais: Britain willing to send more security assistance, says Cameron
This article is more than 6 years old
PM rejects blame game and commits to working more closely with French authorities, tackling people-smuggling gangs and making UK ‘less easy’

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...stance-cameron

[Toodles McGinty]

"As was discussed in last night's 'Question Time', one solution would be to place processing centres across Europe, to assess whether or not an individual qualifies for asylum. Then provide safe passage to Britain.

Disqualify anyone who doesn't go through those channels."

I agree but that wouldn't stop illegal immigration, the applicants who were denied asylum would revert to buying a dinghy and crossing the channel anyway.

Illegal immigrants are a different kettle of fish than asylum seekers. If that's a risk they are willing to take, then be on the run for the rest of their lives, that's a matter for the law. I hope they'd be arrested and deported without consideration.

But for asylum seekers, we have to provide a legal and safe means of application and travel.

[Desert Region]

Ok we're 'pinkskins' or whatever, it's all fine by me. The fact is, these migrants once across the Med, always seem to head North - and countries like the UK, being at the end of the line, are where they ultimately 'wash up'. Ours, as you know, is a relatively small island compared to a big one like Australia - and we're seriously short on space.

I believe the asylum system requires overhauling big-time....Firstly I'd have no sysmpathy for migrants who lie about their circumstances and/or origin. Also no sympathy for economic migrants - both these groups should be sent packing forthwith!

As for genuine hard-luck cases, e.g. those fleeing wars, etc. I'd let them in and provide accommodation, food, healthcare, education etc, 'on the house', until it's time to go home. I.e., when their homeland becomes safe enough for them to be returned. To me, that's being more than kind, and is the only decent thing to do. Whereupon, new waves of refugees can in turn be taken in, on the same 'stay and return when it's safe' basis.

An ethno-nationalist Scrooge.

[Alikado]

"As was discussed in last night's 'Question Time', one solution would be to place processing centres across Europe, to assess whether or not an individual qualifies for asylum. Then provide safe passage to Britain.

Disqualify anyone who doesn't go through those channels."

I agree but that wouldn't stop illegal immigration, the applicants who were denied asylum would revert to buying a dinghy and crossing the channel anyway.

The illegal immigrants can be scooped up off the beaches and promptly returned.

[The PNP]

The illegal immigrants can be scooped up off the beaches and promptly returned.

Now, that sounds like a plan!

[bensherman]

Macron has an election with the ghastly Le Pen gaining ground.

Just give me a clue as to how Boris Johnson has "fooled" me or anyone else and why me and not you?

What on earth has Brexit got to do with it?

Might I remind those who hang on to EU membership with rose tinted glasses that we had to help and pay the French with security during our membership of the EU .


2015.

Calais: Britain willing to send more security assistance, says Cameron
This article is more than 6 years old
PM rejects blame game and commits to working more closely with French authorities, tackling people-smuggling gangs and making UK ‘less easy’

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...stance-cameron

I suggest you read your own posts.
He has lied continuously for years and you for one seems to have believed it all.
As for Brexit, quite simply...we are not now part of the EU group working on this. Patel was invited to their meeting on Sunday nonetheless but talked herself out of it.
And our deportation efforts are greatly hampered by no longer having access to the database which tracked them
As I said in the post you responded to.

[local]

I suggest you read your own posts.
He has lied continuously for years and you for one seems to have believed it all.
As for Brexit, quite simply...we are not now part of the EU group working on this. Patel was invited to their meeting on Sunday nonetheless but talked herself out of it.
And our deportation efforts are greatly hampered by no longer having access to the database which tracked them
As I said in the post you responded to.

What a load of ill-considered tosh the rose-tinted glasses are out again;

Macron has an election with the ghastly Le Pen gaining ground.

Just give me a clue as to how Boris Johnson has "fooled" me or anyone else and why me and not you?

What on earth has Brexit got to do with it?

Might I remind those who hang on to EU membership with rose tinted glasses that we had to help and pay the French with security during our membership of the EU .


2015. Note Date No Brexit No Boris And the same old problems

Calais: Britain willing to send more security assistance, says Cameron
This article is more than 6 years old
PM rejects blame game and commits to working more closely with French authorities, tackling people-smuggling gangs and making UK ‘less easy’

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...stance-cameron



Macron has been offered a series of sensible methods to address the crisis and Macron doesn't like them being exposed.
Again we are supporting the French to do the right thing.

[sandGroundZero]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14
§ 1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

Some shibboleths in the realm of immigration and refugees in international law need to be explicated.

The development of 'nation-states' occurred in Europe over several centuries. By mid 20th century, nation-states and defensible borders had become a more-or-less universal presumption in international law. In the context of two great wars centred in 20th century Europe humanitarian considerations for the plight of persecuted individuals and groups within nation-states, resulted in conventions governing the right to seek refuge across national borders.

A heady burst of idealism post world war II evidently supposed that a new era of international cooperation and peace would result from the foundation of the United Nations. In retrospect there seems to have been a belief that refugee status would only ever be short-term while international pressure was brought to bear on recalcitrant governments leading to resolution. That was pie in the sky!

In the decades since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights refugees have languished in vast camps in neighbouring countries, indefinately. The notion that refugees would and should remain in the first 'safe haven ' condemns the refugees to potentially interminable refugee status. Meanwhile the distinction "economic migrant" as distinct from 'genuine' refugee is deployed endlessly to justify often harsh measures against individuals and families fleeing economic distress typically not of their own making.

Reality is complex. Interventions by nations which had developed the means to dominate others effectively distorted economic and technological development. Willy-nilly the global economy has become thoroughly integrated, albeit not in an equitable manner. The richest nations have become disposed to wash their hands of the responsibilities flowing from their past and present exploitation. We in the United Kingdom wish to believe that we have little or no responsibility for the plight of newly arriving refugees fleeing impoverished, if not murderously disrupted homelands.

As for concern about the impact of climate change, there is no escaping the fact that impacts are being felt, now, generally by people whose historic and current CO² emmissions are well down a (quantitative) list of emitters.

[The PNP]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14
§ 1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

Some shibboleths in the realm of immigration and refugees in international law need to be explicated.

The development of 'nation-states' occurred in Europe over several centuries. By mid 20th century, nation-states and defensible borders had become a more-or-less universal presumption in international law. In the context of two great wars centred in 20th century Europe humanitarian considerations for the plight of persecuted individuals and groups within nation-states, resulted in conventions governing the right to seek refuge across national borders.

A heady burst of idealism post world war II evidently supposed that a new era of international cooperation and peace would result from the foundation of the United Nations. In retrospect there seems to have been a belief that refugee status would only ever be short-term while international pressure was brought to bear on recalcitrant governments leading to resolution. That was pie in the sky!

In the decades since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights refugees have languished in vast camps in neighbouring countries, indefinately. The notion that refugees would and should remain in the first 'safe haven ' condemns the refugees to potentially interminable refugee status. Meanwhile the distinction "economic migrant" as distinct from 'genuine' refugee is deployed endlessly to justify often harsh measures against individuals and families fleeing economic distress typically not of their own making.

Reality is complex. Interventions by nations which had developed the means to dominate others effectively distorted economic and technological development. Willy-nilly the global economy has become thoroughly integrated, albeit not in an equitable manner. The richest nations have become disposed to wash their hands of the responsibilities flowing from their past and present exploitation. We in the United Kingdom wish to believe that we have little or no responsibility for the plight of newly arriving refugees fleeing impoverished, if not murderously disrupted homelands.

As for concern about the impact of climate change, there is no escaping the fact that impacts are being felt, now, generally by people whose historic and current CO² emmissions are well down a (quantitative) list of emitters.

Since that (erroneous) presumption that refugee status would be only temporary, things have got well out of hand......There are currently many millions of 'refugees', who if they were ever to reach and resettle in a small country like the UK (where most apparently aspire to live) they would completely overwhelm it.

Time then, to re-write the official rules on migrations. Otherwise, not only will the West become overcrowded. But places like Afghanistan will lose the very people who should be staying and helping sort out their countries mess. E.g. is it really a good idea for skilled Afghani doctors to migrate to the UK, leaving their countrymen without medical professionals?

[sandGroundZero]

Notwithstanding an evident effort to prove a dubious point, a forum denizen managed to divert this thread, I will post here.

Empire State of Mind | Sathnam Sanghera

Regular contributor to The Times, Sathnam Sanghera, relates some home truths about colonialism and racism in a documentary series currently available on the All 4 streaming service. The child of immigrants to Wolverhampton circa 1968, Sanghera recalls his assimilation into British culture and also his subsequent sense of alienation from his ancestral culture.

[Desert Region]

Always willing to help some none "whiteman" stuff.

https://www.africanvibes.com/did-you...d-from-africa/


https://thinkgrowth.org/14-black-inv...t-3c0702cc63d2

Informative links.

Edit: I'm relieved that this thread still accepts posts. For a moment, I did wonder about that...

[said]

Illegal immigrants are a different kettle of fish than asylum seekers. If that's a risk they are willing to take, then be on the run for the rest of their lives, that's a matter for the law. I hope they'd be arrested and deported without consideration.

But for asylum seekers, we have to provide a legal and safe means of application and travel.

France is closing several of the migrant camps and offering free flights back to wherever these people came from, I hear.

[said]

[QUOTE=sandGroundZero;6795063]Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14


And the reason why the British government wanted to introduce a British Bill of Rights.

May I remind you of the way in which the Irish got rid of many of their migrants in the 18th century - they sent a few thousand of them to Liverpool.

[local]

Aah July seems so long ago now France and the UK issued a joint statement and of course France has done diddly since except take the money.

Which is odd really on one hand soveiregnty so we can't help and we are at fault for being attractive oh but we will swallow our pride for the money.



The UK and France support the idea of a UK-EU re-admission agreement to mutual advantage in terms of deterring illegal migration,



It was agreed that the UK and France would further maximise our ability to detect, disrupt and deter organised criminal groups by sharing respective covert policing expertise, capacity and capability in support of joint intelligence development and live investigations on each side of the Channel as well as further upstream.



Is it any wonder Boris and Priti are sick of them.