Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2023 11:09:25 GMT
Wherever migrants wish to go ilegally, no one can keep them out, not in the United States, Central America, Africa, not in Europe and not even in an island nation like the United Kingdom.
The European Union has a particular problem because it is close to North Africa and the near East where there are wars and turmoil.
The European Union has a coastline on the Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranian, Black Sea, Baltic and Arctic Ocean. Total coasline is 41,000 miles long excluding Ireland.
The EU has land borders with 23 non-EU countries from densely populated areas to wide open plains, river deltas, great forests and countryside to remote and sparsely populated mountainous regions.
Since 2018, 100,000 migrants have entered the UK in small boats crossing the English Channel, and we are an island, so how is a continent which is 1.8 Million square miles, with 23 non-EU borders and 41,000 miles of coasline going to keep them out. ?
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 17, 2023 11:14:25 GMT
Wherever migrants wish to go ilegally, no one can keep them out, not in the United States, Central America, Africa, not in Europe and not even in an island nation like the United Kingdom. I think it is a bit of a stretch to claim they can't be kept out. It is certainly reasonable to observe that they haven't. It would be perfectly possible to reduce the numbers to tiny / inconsequential.
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Sept 17, 2023 11:15:03 GMT
Wherever migrants wish to go ilegally, no one can keep them out, not in the United States, Central America, Africa, not in Europe and not even in an island nation like the United Kingdom. The European Union has a particular problem because it is close to North Africa and the near East where there are wars and turmoil. The European Union has a coastline on the Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranian, Black Sea, Baltic and Arctic Ocean. Total coasline is 41,000 miles long excluding Ireland. The EU has land borders with 23 non-EU countries from densely populated areas to wide open plains, river deltas, great forests and countryside to remote and sparsely populated mountainous regions. Since 2018, 100,000 migrants have entered the UK in small boats crossing the English Channel, and we are an island, so how is a continent which is 1.8 Million square miles, with 23 non-EU borders and 41,000 miles of coasline going to keep them out. ? Does it? but the EU always deny they are one nation.
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Sept 17, 2023 11:31:51 GMT
You appear to be discounting the well-documented finding that, in the UK, 'far right' policies attract much greater public support when they are not associated with parties that are labelled as such in the mainstream media.
The BNP being a particular case in point. In 2006 a YouGov survey asked two sample audiences a series of questions concerning proposals in a BNP manifesto. One sample was given the questions without the BNP being mentioned, the other was told the proposals were BNP policy. 37% of the former said they would vote for such a party, reducing to 20% for those who were told it was the BNP.
Good point. And the example of Nick Griffin and Question Time was a total disgrace. The weasely BBC said that they had to give Griffin a platform as he was an MEP, but then they filled the panel and the audience with all the loony Lefties and ethnics they could find. Even the so-called impartial chairman (David Dimbleby) came with a sheaf of prepared BNP quotes with which to attack Griffin. It was nothing less than a lynch mob. No one was remotely interested in what Griffin said - they were just there to attack him or shout abuse. The BBC should have hung its corporate head in shame, but instead trumpeted the success of "exposing the BNP to scrutiny". It was worse than than that they would only let him speak on immigration not on economics, he was rail-roaded into sticking only to immigration. Another example of how proper debate gets stifled, it is not that BNP would have succeeded yet it might have given better ammunition to others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2023 11:53:09 GMT
Wherever migrants wish to go ilegally, no one can keep them out, not in the United States, Central America, Africa, not in Europe and not even in an island nation like the United Kingdom. The European Union has a particular problem because it is close to North Africa and the near East where there are wars and turmoil. The European Union has a coastline on the Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranian, Black Sea, Baltic and Arctic Ocean. Total coasline is 41,000 miles long excluding Ireland. The EU has land borders with 23 non-EU countries from densely populated areas to wide open plains, river deltas, great forests and countryside to remote and sparsely populated mountainous regions. Since 2018, 100,000 migrants have entered the UK in small boats crossing the English Channel, and we are an island, so how is a continent which is 1.8 Million square miles, with 23 non-EU borders and 41,000 miles of coasline going to keep them out. ? Does it? but the EU always deny they are one nation. It is, and it isent .... on most issues, single agencies such as Forex ( the borders agency ) mostly co-operate and co-ordinate, and assist with individual national agencies, same as Europol. I am 100% certain that if the UK was still a member of Forex, Europol and The Dublin Agreement, it would have been a far less harder task for us to solve the boats crisis, and that is the avenue that the leader of the opposition has been exploring, and rightly so. As a matter of interest, and on a slightly different note, the main utility vehicle that Forex use is the Landrover Discovery, several hundred of them, what a pity that when it comes to renewal, they almost certainly wont be choosing a British vehicle.
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Sept 17, 2023 11:55:39 GMT
Does it? but the EU always deny they are one nation. It is, and it isent .... on most issues, single agencies such as Forex ( the borders agency ) mostly co-operate and co-ordinate, and assist with individual national agencies, same as Europol. I am 100% certain that if the UK was still a member of Forex, Europol and The Dublin Agreement, it would have been a far less harder task for us to solve the boats crisis, and that is the avenue that the leader of the opposition has been exploring, and rightly so. As a matter of interest, and on a slightly different note, the main utility vehicle that Forex use is the Landrover Discovery, several hundred of them, what a pity that when it comes to renewal, they almost certainly wont be choosing a British vehicle. Oh well why didn't you say that then, it is but it isn't, feck me Sid, are we even from the same planet?
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 17, 2023 12:13:37 GMT
The EU's migration system is in a mess and is affecting member states. Yesterday, golden child Germany was saying "willkommen" to asylum seekers. Today, its now telling Italy to piss-off and deal with its issues alone. The lack of 'solidarity' is there for all to see. Same as it was with Covid. Same as it will always be in Europe. Member states at heart are still national democracies whom lookout for themselves first and foremost. The EU tries to hodge-podge issues like this and is dithering as usual. This leaves a space for the right to air their greviences while the situation escalates. Tried to find anything where Germany has refused to help Italy, but all I can find is the EU discussing fines for member states who refuse to help. Can you link me please. They're certainly not doing nothing. www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20170627STO78419/countering-irregular-migration-better-eu-border-management#:~:text=To%20counter%20irregular%20migration%2C%20the,more%20efficiently%20with%20asylum%20applications.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 17, 2023 12:15:35 GMT
Wherever migrants wish to go ilegally, no one can keep them out, not in the United States, Central America, Africa, not in Europe and not even in an island nation like the United Kingdom. I think it is a bit of a stretch to claim they can't be kept out. It is certainly reasonable to observe that they haven't. It would be perfectly possible to reduce the numbers to tiny / inconsequential. Short of some extreme deterrent such as a shoot to kill policy. I don't see how we can stop them. I await your suggestions
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 17, 2023 12:33:39 GMT
<abbr>delete</abbr>
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 17, 2023 12:41:20 GMT
I think it is a bit of a stretch to claim they can't be kept out. It is certainly reasonable to observe that they haven't. It would be perfectly possible to reduce the numbers to tiny / inconsequential. Short of some extreme deterrent such as a shoot to kill policy. I don't see how we can stop them. I await your suggestions It's semantics. It is quite possible to stop the phenomena we see now without resorting to machine gunning down boarders. However, even that drastic a solution might become justified politically at some point if the current situation is just allowed to just roll on. After-all, people would have been told what the consequences could be and they are not compelled to break into a country. "Don't climb through my windows or you may be shot" isn't that unreasonable at base and most people understand the logic. The solution is to remove the incentive. The draw at the moment of the prospect of being able to force yourself into another community. It's pretty obvious how you would withdraw this incentive and make attempting to grasp this opportunity un-inviting - barracks, wireless free accommodation on a barren, windswept and remote promontory. The irregular applications would fall to a trickle and some of the genuine cases might end up getting exactly the help they need (security).
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 17, 2023 12:45:17 GMT
Sidfiddler: "Wherever migrants wish to go ilegally, no one can keep them out, not in the United States, Central America, Africa, not in Europe and not even in an island nation like the United Kingdom." It all rather depends on whether the political will is there to keep them out. You could, for example adopt the British approach i.e. Or the Polish one: There is a political choice to be made, and it's not one that can be abdicated to 'Brussels'.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 17, 2023 13:24:01 GMT
The EU's migration system is in a mess and is affecting member states. Yesterday, golden child Germany was saying "willkommen" to asylum seekers. Today, its now telling Italy to piss-off and deal with its issues alone. The lack of 'solidarity' is there for all to see. Same as it was with Covid. Same as it will always be in Europe. Member states at heart are still national democracies whom lookout for themselves first and foremost. The EU tries to hodge-podge issues like this and is dithering as usual. This leaves a space for the right to air their greviences while the situation escalates. Tried to find anything where Germany has refused to help Italy, but all I can find is the EU discussing fines for member states who refuse to help. This might be in reference to EU's appeal to help Italy with its migrants. It's possible Germany is not keen. IMHO until the priority shifts from finding various ways to get them in to keeping them out, getting unity on the matter is going to be tricky.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 17, 2023 13:59:27 GMT
Short of some extreme deterrent such as a shoot to kill policy. I don't see how we can stop them. I await your suggestions It's semantics. It is quite possible to stop the phenomena we see now without resorting to machine gunning down boarders. However, even that drastic a solution might become justified politically at some point if the current situation is just allowed to just roll on. After-all, people would have been told what the consequences could be and they are not compelled to break into a country. "Don't climb through my windows or you may be shot" isn't that unreasonable at base and most people understand the logic. The solution is to remove the incentive. The draw at the moment of the prospect of being able to force yourself into another community. It's pretty obvious how you would withdraw this incentive and make attempting to grasp this opportunity un-inviting - barracks, wireless free accommodation on a barren, windswept and remote promontory. The irregular applications would fall to a trickle and some of the genuine cases might end up getting exactly the help they need (security). So Imprisonment. Preferably Alcatraz style? Would this drive them into the black market, drugs money laundering protection sex slavery etc ? Surely we could do that with the cost of a prison island? We could just offer no financial, legal, medical, educational help. I guess the next question is; are we willing to do that and what are the consequences?
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Sept 17, 2023 14:35:16 GMT
There is a classic paper that I usually refer back to whenever this question arises. It poses and attempts to answer the question "Why is it that (only) western liberal democracies are plagued by unwanted immigration?"
The author notes that “… some states, such as the immigrant-receiving states of the oil-producing Middle East, are very efficient at keeping out, or sending back, unwanted immigrants.” The Asian tiger economies are equally efficient in that regard.
He further adds that "Western liberal states have implemented self-imposed limits on their own sovereignty, including their ability to properly control immigration... The capacity of states to control immigration has not diminished but increased—as every person landing at Schiphol or Sydney airports without a valid entry visa would painfully notice. But for domestic reasons, liberal states are kept from putting this capability to effective use.”
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 17, 2023 14:53:37 GMT
It's semantics. It is quite possible to stop the phenomena we see now without resorting to machine gunning down boarders. However, even that drastic a solution might become justified politically at some point if the current situation is just allowed to just roll on. After-all, people would have been told what the consequences could be and they are not compelled to break into a country. "Don't climb through my windows or you may be shot" isn't that unreasonable at base and most people understand the logic. The solution is to remove the incentive. The draw at the moment of the prospect of being able to force yourself into another community. It's pretty obvious how you would withdraw this incentive and make attempting to grasp this opportunity un-inviting - barracks, wireless free accommodation on a barren, windswept and remote promontory. The irregular applications would fall to a trickle and some of the genuine cases might end up getting exactly the help they need (security). So Imprisonment. Preferably Alcatraz style? They would be free to leave and I note the carefully positioned hysteric exaggeration. Physically preventing entry would be mowing them down - got it Removing the incentive to enter is putting them in Alcatraz - got it. Ergo - we have to allow them unfettered entry until we have a hard right revolution or our society collapses. To my mind you are just signalling the inability of your political position to deal with reality - rather than actually saying anything about what can , or can't, be done You only count is as impossible to solve because your political position doesn't allow it to be dealt with realistically
|
|