Even Keir doesn’t want 'open borders' to help the NHS.

[motorbiking]

Lots of sources here - the estimating method seems solid and I have picked a low figure:

Unauthorised migration in the UK - Migration Observatory

This briefing examines unauthorised migration in the UK, presents evidence on its nature and scale, and discusses the difficulties involved in defining and calculating it.

migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk

I didn't ask a question. I'm providing context as to why people think the country has a problem.

When you look at some of the recent "handover" traffic VHF Ch16 between French and British authorities (of course with the aim of avoiding loss of life) you can see why the Gangsters pockets are full and the British (and French) tax payer is left ferrying them across the channel.

 

[Pat ex]

Lots of sources here - the estimating method seems solid and I have picked a low figure:

Unauthorised migration in the UK - Migration Observatory

This briefing examines unauthorised migration in the UK, presents evidence on its nature and scale, and discusses the difficulties involved in defining and calculating it.

migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk

As the UK fails to deport failed asylum seekers (often because the potential mechanism for doing so was broken by Brexit), then UK Asylum process failures must be held responsible for a large number of "irregular migrants".
If there are about 120,000 cases pending, and the average success rate is about 86%, then that will be about 20,000 failed asylum seekers for whom the UK abdicates its responsibility. Then there's the visa overstayers, the illegal immigrants, etc.
Yet the attention persistently shifts to the law-abiding asylum seekers currently awaiting a decision.

Asylum seekers who have been refused protection but do not leave the UK add to the irregular migrant population. Data on the outcomes of asylum applications, taking into account appeals, show that from 2010 to 2018, an average of around 9,500 asylum seekers were refused per year, while an average of around 4,000 were recorded as having departed the UK. This suggests that around 5,500 unsuccessful asylum seekers per year were not recorded as having departed the UK (whether via enforced, facilitated, or independent return) – equivalent to over half of all refused asylum applicants

So we have about 5,500 failed asylum seekers per year over an 8 year period is about 50,000, taking into account approximate increases in asylum seekers. Add the successive 6 years, and we have something like a potential 100,000 failed asylum seekers that the government know nothing about, and does nothing about!

When you look at some of the recent "handover" traffic VHF Ch16 between French and British authorities (of course with the aim of avoiding loss of life) you can see why the Gangsters pockets are full and the British (and French) tax payer is left ferrying them across the channel.

Yet the Government persistently refuses to consider making safe and legal routes for asylum seekers which would destroy the gangsters' market overnight.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Yet the Government persistently refuses to consider making safe and legal routes for asylum seekers which would destroy the gangsters' market overnight.




Would destroy all the right wing anger at a stroke too. Not sure they want that to happen though. Anger and the ability to blame others is their only real support currently.

The bit that amuses me is that most of those angry people consider themselves as clever, thinking people. But just thinking the thoughts that are aimed at them

 

[motorbiking]

How many more will come with "safe and legal routes"?
Will those who are not eligible still pay the gangsters?
Dublin agreement - barely a handful.

You have to think these proposal through before claiming they are the fix.

 

[Pat ex]

Yet the Government persistently refuses to consider making safe and legal routes for asylum seekers which would destroy the gangsters' market overnight.




Would destroy all the right wing anger at a stroke too. Not sure they want that to happen though. Anger and the ability to blame others is their only real support currently.

The bit that amuses me is that most of those angry people consider themselves as clever, thinking people. But just thinking the thoughts that are aimed at them

If only the UK would put some finance into a safe and legal crossing.
One ferry, sailing every fortnight, with about 2,000 asylum seekers would easily accommodate all potential asylum seekers.
They would be under immediate care and supervision, and even their claim could be started while on-board.

Then the Government would need to mend agreements and create new ones to deal with the failed asylum seekers in a humane and effective process.
Currently, even failed asylum seekers can not be returned in the possibility of returning them to war, persecution, etc, due to the UNHCR non-refoulement clause.

In addition if asylum seekers were allowed o work, it would help the labour shortage.

 

[Pat ex]

How many more will come with "safe and legal routes"?
Will those who are not eligible still pay the gangsters?
Dublin agreement - barely a handful.

You have to think these proposal through before claiming they are the fix.

Of course, but to dismiss them out-of-hand signifies an ideological refusal, rather then a rational refusal.

Let's have a proper consideration rather than a point-blank refusal. A proper consideration would allow scrutiny and discussion.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

How many more will come with "safe and legal routes"?
Will those who are not eligible still pay the gangsters?
Dublin agreement - barely a handful.

You have to think these proposal through before claiming they are the fix.

the issue is returning those not eligible. Once that bit is sorted, with an efficient safe and legal route to apply, the attraction to "try their luck" and pay the gangs will drop hugely.

what's the other choice? Just keep being angry ?

 

[motorbiking]

As we all know from previous discussions. The vessels are illegal, the occupants are illegal, the acts are illegal, the organisers are breaking the law and yet French are British authorities flow back and forth, escorting them across the channel, with few prosecuted.

There are many in France saying the problem is the "English'" fault for having too generous policies. Franck Dhersin, Natacha Bouchart etc. I think I agree.

For me a "safe and legal route" which I think would be fairly unique in the world, would see number increase and gangsters even more successful. Its like legalising drugs to stop the drug economy. They wont pack up shop and you'll then have a bigger problem.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

As we all know from previous discussions. The vessels are illegal, the occupants are illegal, the acts are illegal, the organisers are breaking the law and yet French are British authorities flow back and forth, escorting them across the channel, with few prosecuted.

There are many in France saying the problem is the "English'" fault for having too generous policies. Franck Dhersin, Natacha Bouchart etc. I think I agree.

For me a "safe and legal route" which I think would be fairly unique in the world, would see number increase and gangsters even more successful. Its like legalising drugs to stop the drug economy. They wont pack up shop and you'll then have a bigger problem.

Erm. Your facts aren't correct facts.

no point going further

 

[Pat ex]

As we all know from previous discussions. The vessels are illegal, the occupants are illegal, the acts are illegal, the organisers are breaking the law and yet French are British authorities flow back and forth, escorting them across the channel, with few prosecuted.

There are many in France saying the problem is the "English'" fault for having too generous policies. Franck Dhersin, Natacha Bouchart etc. I think I agree.

As carmanmemoranda says: the same old tired and disproven claims.

For me a "safe and legal route" which I think would be fairly unique in the world, would see number increase and gangsters even more successful. Its like legalising drugs to stop the drug economy. They wont pack up shop and you'll then have a bigger problem.

So dismiss it out-of-hand, refuse to have a reasonable and fair consideration? I think I've already dealt with that.

A "safe and legal route" has been used by UK on several occasions, Vietnam, Ukraine (126,000), Afghanistan, Hong Kong (133,000) and Iraq to name a few. It wouldn't be unique at all. There are also the current 'Resettlement Scheme', the 'Family Members Scheme', etc all of which are of desperately little use.
The success figure is only about 25% using this route.

How would it make gangsters more successful if they had fewer customers?

 

[motorbiking]

Neither of course is true. A person only has the protection of asylum/refugee status if they claim it. If they don't claim it when stopped and questioned and cannot account for their illegal presence and activity, they are likely to be arrested and ultimately found guilty of the offences they are committing. We know the boat people refuse assistance until they are in UK waters, in order to avoid being returned to sender. In Greece for example the Greek authorities "encourage" them to turn back. Of course the French authorities do not want armies of illegals suddenly claiming French asylum or ending up in French prison, or being deported at the expense of the French. Much easier and cheaper to facilitate the crossing.

The gangs wont disperse until there are significant and lengthy jail terms for those caught and prosecuted. It would appear the French are not keen to enforce their laws without donations from the British Tax payer. This seems reasonable to a level, it is a joint problem.

We know there are significant numbers of "no hoper claimants" e.g. the Albanian migrants, who are wanting/encouraged to come to the UK and plenty of gang lords willing to procure them into their employment. This wont be fixed by providing legal routes for genuine claimants.

Its the travel agents that need targeting and word needs to get out that its a wet and cold round trip back to Albania etc.

 

[Pat ex]

Neither of course is true.

What are you referring to?

A person only has the protection of asylum/refugee status if they claim it. If they don't claim it when stopped and questioned and cannot account for their illegal presence and activity, they are likely to be arrested and ultimately found guilty of the offences they are committing.

Of course. How does this affect any discussion? You seem to be stating a universally accepted fact as some kind of one-sided argument.

We know the boat people refuse assistance until they are in UK waters, in order to avoid being returned to sender.

You're conflating 'being in distress at sea' and 'claiming asylum' when landing or be rescued.
It's perfectly legal to choose when you are in distress and when you are not. A coastguard cannot insist a vessel is in distress if it's not.
Therefore it's perfectly legal for a boat to refuse assistance from one nation's responders, and then later, accept assistance from another nation's responders.

In Greece for example the Greek authorities "encourage" them to turn back.

We're not currently discussing the situation in other areas. The conditions and reactions in other areas will all differ, and they are not transferable.

Of course the French authorities do not want armies of illegals suddenly claiming French asylum or ending up in French prison, or being deported at the expense of the French. Much easier and cheaper to facilitate the crossing.

The French already handle far more asylum seekers than UK. Your argument lacks logic.

The gangs wont disperse until there are significant and lengthy jail terms for those caught and prosecuted.

The threat of penalty does not deter those who appear to be untouchable.

It would appear the French are not keen to enforce their laws without donations from the British Tax payer.

Stopping channel crossings is not really a joint problem

This seems reasonable to a level, it is a joint problem.

UK makes it a problem, and blame the French for their own failures and anti-foreigner sentiment.

We know there are significant numbers of "no hoper claimants" e.g. the Albanian migrants, who are wanting/encouraged to come to the UK and plenty of gang lords willing to procure them into their employment. This wont be fixed by providing legal routes for genuine claimants.

You're getting ideologically desperate now. The Albanians are a very recent phenomenon and many are successful.

Its the travel agents that need targeting and word needs to get out that its a wet and cold round trip back to Albania etc.

No-on is arguing that it can't be a two pronged approach, but the UK creating the market for criminals exacerbates the opportunities for them.

 

[motorbiking]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that at the time they are in their vessel and in France or French territorial waters they are breaking many laws.

 

[Pat ex]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that at the time they are in their vessel and in France or French territorial waters they are breaking many laws.

What would happen if they abandoned ship as they were approached?
Perhaps you'd like to list what laws are being broken by sailing a dingy, with a motor less than 4HP, from a beach in France?
That is assuming they can be detected, caught and taken to court?

 

[motorbiking]

Firstly they have bigger engines and aren't sailing a dingy. They are illegally operating a passenger vessel. In France its a legal requirement for all boats to be registered. In addition a vessel adapted to carry 12 passengers or more is classed as a commercial ferry or passenger ship. Its a legal requirement for any skipper taking fee paying passengers to be commercially endorsed (qualified and checked). Its also a legal requirement for the vessel to be coded (safety checked) to the necessary standards for its purpose. Then we have the fact that everyone is unlawfully present in France without having cleared customs etc and without the proper visa.. Schengen violations etc. Then you have the assistance of asylum seekers/illegal migrants etc. etc.

The Law in the UK is slightly different, small craft don't needed to be registered but the rest is pretty much matched in the UK also. If they were not breaking the law, the French authorities would appear to be committing some sort of criminal damage every time they destroy the inflatables?

Anyone jumping in 12-15 degree water is going to need rescuing pretty quick, no matter what. If they protest, just wait 5-10 minutes until they lose the ability.

I count at least 30 passengers and motor with more than 15hp. You certainly couldn't generate that wake pushing a 4,200kg vessel with 4hp. A 4hp motor would struggle to push it 3kts.