|
|
Post by zanygame on May 11, 2023 21:20:06 GMT
You miss the other half of my explanation. The number of people now aware of the "entrepreneurial opportunity this presented" as you put it. were able to do so without having to rely upon the services of traffickers would that mean the problem has gone away, in your view? Yes, which is why the rules need re-writing and the methods changing. No, that's not what I said. I merely described the problem as I see it and as you requested. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 12, 2023 7:54:21 GMT
Sorry, still not getting it.
The obstacles put in place to deter asylum seekers is one part of the problem, but what is the other part again?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on May 12, 2023 9:20:16 GMT
Sorry, still not getting it. The obstacles put in place to deter asylum seekers is one part of the problem, but what is the other part again? The lack of dinghies due to not recruiting sufficient migrants who want to return to France; sounds silly but it matches the Zany argument. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 12, 2023 17:45:15 GMT
Sorry, still not getting it. The obstacles put in place to deter asylum seekers is one part of the problem, but what is the other part again? The growth in communication that showed a far greater number of people how life could be if they reached the West, causing a balloon in the numbers pretending to be refugees and asylum seekers. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 13, 2023 7:50:08 GMT
OK, I understand now. Obstacles plus the allure of a western lifestyle create the demand, and traffickers provide the means.
Do you have a preferred solution?
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 13, 2023 8:20:33 GMT
OK, I understand now. Obstacles plus the allure of a western lifestyle create the demand, and traffickers provide the means. Do you have a preferred solution? Yep you got it. There aren't any brilliant solutions. My chosen one would be to set up asylum centres in safe countries near the borders on those countries where people wish to escape. People would be processed and if they have a genuine claim or a country decides to accept them they would move forward, if not they would be photographed and marked as not accepted. Anyone turning up on UK soil directly would still be processed, but would be told that is they fail (Or their photo matches a 'not accepted' applicant) they would face either deportation or imprisonment. I leave imprisonment in the mix because many people cannot be deported because they refuse to give convincing information on their country of origin. In this way I hope we could fulfil our obligation to offer sanctuary to those escaping death and war. While discouraging those who hope to abuse that obligation. What's your preferred solution. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 13, 2023 8:28:25 GMT
You may recall but have probably forgotten but my preferred solution is Fortress Europe. Nobody gets in unless we want them to.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 13, 2023 8:42:33 GMT
You may recall but have probably forgotten but my preferred solution is Fortress Europe. Nobody gets in unless we want them to. Yes. But there's no flesh on those bones. How do you stop them? By guns? Who do we want and who decides? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 13, 2023 9:03:55 GMT
It's more challenging now Britain has left the EU but it's clear that a European-level solution is needed. As the Archbishop reminded us this week there are going to be 800 million additional climate refugees by 2050.
So yes, there will need to be guns in the sense that the common border will need to be militarised.
As for who decides who gets in, that also needs to be done at the European level. One of the fundamental weaknesses of the EU is that immigration remains the prerogative of individual member states.
It goes without saying many liberal sacred cows will need to be led to slaughter to bring all this to pass. One of which is what you call our 'obligation' to provide sanctuary.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 13, 2023 9:28:53 GMT
You may recall but have probably forgotten but my preferred solution is Fortress Europe. Nobody gets in unless we want them to. Unfortunately we have been busy allowing a very large fifth column to come into being within fortress Europe. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 13, 2023 9:48:49 GMT
Indeed, Well it is now. No one can force there way in, so are you simply talking about increased patrols or shoot on sight? Yes I see this. One advantage of my asylum system is that it allows each member state to decide their own criteria (Albeit with some framework) So if Norway says No then Belgium might say Yes to an applicant. It would ofcourse require a bit of a re-write on FoM, but then that's long overdue anyway. Yes it does. Its a shame but starvation and displacement cannot be allowed to be reasons for asylum or refugee status. I'm a leftie at heart, but I do think we should offer help with agriculture and population control rather than sanctuary for those living in areas that can't support them. Its a strange thing but we (Me included) tend to think of Africa as a desert and scrubland with little chance of feeding its population. But whenever you see any program that isn't on famine the countries are very green and fertile. And with populations far less dense than Europe. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 13, 2023 10:51:50 GMT
Anyone turning up on UK soil directly would still be processed, but would be told that is they fail (Or their photo matches a 'not accepted' applicant) they would face either deportation or imprisonment. I leave imprisonment in the mix because many people cannot be deported because they refuse to give convincing information on their country of origin. What happens after their term of imprisonment if they still refuse to disclose their origin?. Once they are in the country it is almost impossible to remove them - hence the focus needs to be on stopping illegal migrants entering in the first place - and if they do enter they are immediately transferred out of country to safe area for processing. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on May 13, 2023 12:15:14 GMT
Anyone turning up on UK soil directly would still be processed, but would be told that is they fail (Or their photo matches a 'not accepted' applicant) they would face either deportation or imprisonment. I leave imprisonment in the mix because many people cannot be deported because they refuse to give convincing information on their country of origin. Who said there was a prison term? They remain in prison until they agree to leave the country. That's going really well isn't it. Or are you suggesting were-write maritime law to leave them to drown in the Channel? My idea is to make coming here a pointless exercise. As far as the information allows most economic migrants apply for asylum on being picked up and then promptly disappear. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on May 13, 2023 13:10:48 GMT
What happens after their term of imprisonment if they still refuse to disclose their origin?. where do "they" leave from to get to the UK? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2023 15:32:50 GMT
It's more challenging now Britain has left the EU but it's clear that a European-level solution is needed. As the Archbishop reminded us this week there are going to be 800 million additional climate refugees by 2050. So yes, there will need to be guns in the sense that the common border will need to be militarised. As for who decides who gets in, that also needs to be done at the European level. One of the fundamental weaknesses of the EU is that immigration remains the prerogative of individual member states. It goes without saying many liberal sacred cows will need to be led to slaughter to bring all this to pass. One of which is what you call our 'obligation' to provide sanctuary. What is a climate refugee? Are people already using climate as an excuse to move. I could understand it if moving to Spain for a better climate, but Manchester? |
|
