NPR

I’ve been wanting to get the boreds views on this for a while. Twitter is a hate-fest on all sides.

But I don’t want to be responsible for a horrible thread. So I’m hoping this being on NPR will be a more reasoned discussion.

What are your views? Where are you with this?

Is it a problem with the volume and/or types of people? Or do we need this for our population.

How might the government do better?

I’ll open.

There are people with a genuine need, but I don’t think the majority of these boat people who throw their ids/passports away are here for the right reasons.

I feel these are mostly young men who are sold on the idea of a paid for stint. Many of them are bad actors, and the reason they aren’t staying in France is because they only get tents over there.

I personally hope we have a system where we open an office in France for processing them. Those who still venture over on boats should be able to be returned to France for processing.

For those who are over here currently, rather than have them sitting around in hotels getting bored, we should make use of them with the councils. Repairing potholes, clearing paths, weeds. Positively contributing to the community’s they have been dropped in to, during the application process.

Your thoughts on how this is dealt with?

Or do you not even see a problem?

What legal route can that take to claim asylum in the UK?

Hence why we need a France processing facility.

The only ones still on boats throwing away ids after that point would be illegals.

define 'illegals'

Meanwhile is post-Brexshit utopia

For years, Britain’s governing Conservative Party has pledged to restrict immigration, and a vow to “take back control” of borders and migration was a centerpiece of the Brexit campaign to leave the European Union.

Instead, [legal]immigration soared in 2022, according to national statistics released on Thursday — news that was somewhat embarrassing to party leaders, whose largely pro-Brexit voters had expected it to fall.

The 'illegal' boat people rheotric is nothing more than a poster for conservatives to drive fear to get idiots to vote for them again. Which is astounding effective but as quoted above amounts to nothing. If the cons actually made good and solved the problem, no one would vote for them.

13 years of open door policies from the UK government.
Wtf do people expect?

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:02 am define 'illegals'

Meanwhile is post-Brexshit utopia

For years, Britain’s governing Conservative Party has pledged to restrict immigration, and a vow to “take back control” of borders and migration was a centerpiece of the Brexit campaign to leave the European Union.

Instead, [legal]immigration soared in 2022, according to national statistics released on Thursday — news that was somewhat embarrassing to party leaders, whose largely pro-Brexit voters had expected it to fall.

The 'illegal' boat people rheotric is nothing more than a poster for conservatives to drive fear to get idiots to vote for them again. Which is astounding effective but as quoted above amounts to nothing. If the cons actually made good and solved the problem, no one would vote for them.

My definition of an illegal would be someone who
- enters the country illegally (not through immigration)
- not leaving a war-torn country where their life is at threat

EnergiseR2 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:03 am As a staunch Europhile why would we open a processing plant on your behalf. Seems counter-intuitive. I'd open a Decathlon and a few recreational water sports facilities

I guess the alternative to a France one, would be a Rwandan one.

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:18 am

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:02 am define 'illegals'

Meanwhile is post-Brexshit utopia

For years, Britain’s governing Conservative Party has pledged to restrict immigration, and a vow to “take back control” of borders and migration was a centerpiece of the Brexit campaign to leave the European Union.

Instead, [legal]immigration soared in 2022, according to national statistics released on Thursday — news that was somewhat embarrassing to party leaders, whose largely pro-Brexit voters had expected it to fall.

The 'illegal' boat people rheotric is nothing more than a poster for conservatives to drive fear to get idiots to vote for them again. Which is astounding effective but as quoted above amounts to nothing. If the cons actually made good and solved the problem, no one would vote for them.

My definition of an illegal would be someone who
- enters the country illegally (not through immigration)
- not leaving a war-torn country where there life is at threat

Seeking asylum or refuge is not illegal and there are something like 150 countries signed up to the UN charter or treaty that protects the right to seek asylum.

Calling something illegal for political purposes doesn't make it illegal.

I think illegal is for those who have no legal right to claim to asylum. Ie those coming from Albania, as opposed to those coming from Ukraine.

https://www.unhcr.org/us/news/stories/r ... tions-faqs

'Refugees' and 'Migrants'

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. Are the terms ‘refugee’ and ‘migrant’ interchangeable?

No. Although it is becoming increasingly common to see the terms 'refugee' and 'migrant' used interchangeably in media and public discussions, there is a crucial legal difference between the two. Confusing them can lead to problems for refugees and asylum-seekers, and for States seeking to respond to mixed movements, as well as to misunderstandings in discussions of asylum and migration.

2. What is unique about refugees?

Refugees are specifically defined and protected in international law. Refugees are people outside their country of origin because of feared persecution, conflict, violence, or other circumstances that have seriously disturbed public order, and who, as a result, require ‘international protection’. Their situation is often so perilous and intolerable, that they cross national borders to seek safety in nearby countries, and thus become internationally recognized as ‘refugees’ with access to assistance from states, UNHCR, and relevant organizations. They are so recognized precisely because it is too dangerous for them to return home, and they therefore need sanctuary elsewhere. These are people for whom denial of asylum has potentially deadly consequences.

3. How are refugees protected under international law?

The specific legal regime protecting the rights of refugees is referred to as ‘international refugee protection’. The rationale behind the need for this regime lies in the fact that refugees are people in a specific predicament which calls for additional safeguards. Asylum-seekers and refugees lack the protection of their own country.

Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts the right of everyone to seek and enjoy asylum. However, no clear content was given to the notion of asylum at the international level until the 1951 Convention related to the Status of Refugees [the ‘1951 Convention’] was adopted, and UNHCR was tasked to supervise its implementation. The 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, as well as regional legal instruments, such as the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, are the cornerstone of the modern refugee protection regime. They set forth a universal refugee definition and incorporate the basic rights and obligations of refugees.

The provisions of the 1951 Convention remain the primary international standard against which any measures for the protection and treatment of refugees are judged. Its most important provision, the principle of non-refoulement (meaning no forced returns) contained in Article 33, is the bedrock of the regime. According to this principle, refugees must not be expelled or returned to situations where their life or freedom would be under threat. States bear the primary responsibility for this protection. UNHCR works closely with governments, advising and supporting them as needed, to implement their responsibilities.

4. Does the 1951 Convention need to be revisited?

The 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol have saved millions of lives and as such are among the key human rights instruments that we rely upon today. The 1951 Convention is a milestone of humanity developed in the wake of massive population movements that exceeded even the magnitude of what we see now. At its core, the 1951 Convention embodies fundamental humanitarian values. It has clearly demonstrated its adaptability to changing factual circumstances, being acknowledged by courts as a living instrument capable of affording protection to refugees in a changing environment. The greatest challenge to refugee protection is most certainly not the 1951 Convention itself, but rather ensuring that states comply with it. The real need is to find more effective ways to implement it in a spirit of international cooperation and responsibility-sharing.

5. Can ‘migrant’ be used as a generic term to also cover refugees?

A uniform legal definition of the term ‘migrant’ does not exist at the international level.[1] Some policymakers, international organizations, and media outlets understand and use the word ‘migrant’ as an umbrella term to cover both migrants and refugees. For instance, global statistics on international migration typically use a definition of ‘international migrant’ that would include many asylum-seekers and refugees.

In public discussion, however, this practice can easily lead to confusion and can also have serious consequences for the lives and safety of refugees. ‘Migration’ is often understood to imply a voluntary process, for example, someone who crosses a border in search of better economic opportunities. This is not the case for refugees, who cannot return home safely, and accordingly are owed specific protections under international law.

Blurring the terms ‘refugees’ and ‘migrants’ takes attention away from the specific legal protections refugees require, such as protection from refoulement and from being penalized for crossing borders without authorization in order to seek safety. There is nothing illegal about seeking asylum – on the contrary, it is a universal human right. Conflating ‘refugees’ and ‘migrants’ can undermine public support for refugees and the institution of asylum at a time when more refugees need such protection than ever before.

We need to treat all human beings with respect and dignity. We need to ensure that the human rights of migrants are respected. At the same time, we also need to provide an appropriate legal and operational response for refugees, because of their particular predicament, and to avoid diluting state responsibilities towards them. For this reason, UNHCR always refers to ‘refugees’ and ‘migrants’ separately, to maintain clarity about the causes and character of refugee movements and not to lose sight of the specific obligations owed to refugees under international law.

So, obviously, it’s the large number of boat people (bad actors) who don’t at all qualify as a refugee (point 2)

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:34 am So, obviously, it’s the large number of boat people (bad actors) who don’t at all qualify as a refugee.

What are your qualifications in the field?

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:36 am

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:34 am So, obviously, it’s the large number of boat people (bad actors) who don’t at all qualify as a refugee.

What are your qualifications in the field?

I gave you the benefit of the doubt above, but I believe you’re now posting in bad faith.

Our government is a bad faith actor with no intention of solving anything but this is a useful way of getting support.

petej wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:37 am Our government is a bad faith actor with no intention of solving anything but this is a useful way of getting support.

I don’t think that’s true. The Rwanda scheme was not something which fits that narrative.If anything, it was too excessive. And I’m sure you’d agree our Home Secretary’s did want it to work.

But I’m not here to defend the government, except to hope for a way forward from here, and hope for constructive thoughts.

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:37 am

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:36 am

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:34 am So, obviously, it’s the large number of boat people (bad actors) who don’t at all qualify as a refugee.

What are your qualifications in the field?

I gave you the benefit of the doubt above, but I believe you’re now posting in bad faith.

Who are you to say who is or is not a bad actor? There are various agencies that investigate refugee claims and their resources far outstrip those who may or may not be relying on mainstream media as their informed sources...

and the term 'boat people' was coined in the 70s I believe, to describe the massive movement of people fleeing atrocities in Vietnam. Many thousands of Boat People were resettled in NZ and Australia. The use of the term now seems more than a little contrived... especially if we take into account the massive effort that went into the proudly British and Allied landings in Normandy on D Day in WWII. Were you aware of how many boats were requisitioned by the armed forces from their private owners to enable the invasion of mainland Europe by a heavily armed and hostile force?

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:18 am My definition of an illegal would be someone who
- enters the country illegally (not through immigration)
- not leaving a war-torn country where their life is at threat

So claiming asylum from non-war-torn countries should be illegal, claiming from war-torn is ok (but how does a person from a war-torn country claim asylum legally currently?) and why does it have to war-torn only, don't other threat to life reasons count?

Kicking off here in rural Wales.
Stradey Park hotel is set to house 300 migrants. This hotel is on the outskirts of Llanelli, it's a mile from town center in a village with 1 shop and 2 pubs. They're not providing cooking facilities for these families, so wtf are they going to do all day and how can they feed themselves?..

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 6:10 am I’ve been wanting to get the boreds views on this for a while. Twitter is a hate-fest on all sides.

But I don’t want to be responsible for a horrible thread. So I’m hoping this being on NPR will be a more reasoned discussion.

What are your views? Where are you with this?

Is it a problem with the volume and/or types of people? Or do we need this for our population.

How might the government do better?

As I said on the Tories thread - on current trends (might go up or down over the years) we’ll be looking at the equivalent of another London in ten years time. That’s a major issue to address. Obviously.

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:31 am

4. Does the 1951 Convention need to be revisited?

The 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol have saved millions of lives and as such are among the key human rights instruments that we rely upon today. The 1951 Convention is a milestone of humanity developed in the wake of massive population movements that exceeded even the magnitude of what we see now. At its core, the 1951 Convention embodies fundamental humanitarian values. It has clearly demonstrated its adaptability to changing factual circumstances, being acknowledged by courts as a living instrument capable of affording protection to refugees in a changing environment. The greatest challenge to refugee protection is most certainly not the 1951 Convention itself, but rather ensuring that states comply with it. The real need is to find more effective ways to implement it in a spirit of international cooperation and responsibility-sharing.

Realistically yes the convention does need to be revised. One doesn't get the impression any country wants the year on year numbers being migrated.

But there does need to be a lot of work on what a refugee means, so for instance if everyone is being treated horribly you as an individual aren't being mistreated even if your life is for shit, stay home and fix your problems or die. And actually getting our politicians to make and stand by a such a brutal decision will not be easy, unless one elects the Trumps and Cruellas of the world

How though one gets international cooperation when everyone wants the problem to be someone else's problem, when far too little action is being taken in redistributing wealth, even less again is being done about climate change. How will any funding/support be shared among those countries who are in a position to help more even just faced with the existing underfunded situation

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:45 am

petej wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:37 am Our government is a bad faith actor with no intention of solving anything but this is a useful way of getting support.

I don’t think that’s true. The Rwanda scheme was not something which fits that narrative.If anything, it was too excessive. And I’m sure you’d agree our Home Secretary’s did want it to work.

But I’m not here to defend the government, except to hope for a way forward from here, and hope for constructive thoughts.

Ths Government has proved it is not capable of managing immigration, it's like arsonists complaining about the size of a fire whilst throwing petrol on it to dampen the flames.

As Gog and others have alluded to, you can't seriously address this issue without understanding that with net migration at over half a million for a couple of years running (and little sign of it slowing down) we're heading towards an absolute infrastructure car crash that will lead to a significant drop in living standards for most of us.

Insane_Homer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:52 am

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:18 am My definition of an illegal would be someone who
- enters the country illegally (not through immigration)
- not leaving a war-torn country where their life is at threat

So claiming asylum from non-war-torn countries should be illegal, claiming from war-torn is ok (but how does a person from a war-torn country claim asylum legally currently?) and why does it have to war-torn only, don't other threat to life reasons count?

War-torn country is a specific case, and very relevant, but let’s generalise to the definition of those not being under the refugee definition, if it helps you to move forward.

People who arrive not via legal immigration means and who are not in this camp …

Refugees are specifically defined and protected in international law. Refugees are people outside their country of origin because of feared persecution, conflict, violence, or other circumstances that have seriously disturbed public order, and who, as a result, require ‘international protection’. Their situation is often so perilous and intolerable, that they cross national borders to seek safety in nearby countries, and thus become internationally recognized as ‘refugees’

C69 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 8:33 am

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:45 am

petej wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:37 am Our government is a bad faith actor with no intention of solving anything but this is a useful way of getting support.

I don’t think that’s true. The Rwanda scheme was not something which fits that narrative.If anything, it was too excessive. And I’m sure you’d agree our Home Secretary’s did want it to work.

But I’m not here to defend the government, except to hope for a way forward from here, and hope for constructive thoughts.

Ths Government has proved it is not capable of managing immigration, it's like arsonists complaining about the size of a fire whilst throwing petrol on it to dampen the flames.

It’s definitely failed so far. The numbers tell you that. But the implication was that they had no intention of solving it. I think that’s very untrue.

Age Demographics are the elephant in the room on this one. I favour a Logan’s run solution over immigration.

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:47 am

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:37 am

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:36 am

What are your qualifications in the field?

I gave you the benefit of the doubt above, but I believe you’re now posting in bad faith.

Who are you to say who is or is not a bad actor? There are various agencies that investigate refugee claims and their resources far outstrip those who may or may not be relying on mainstream media as their informed sources...

and the term 'boat people' was coined in the 70s I believe, to describe the massive movement of people fleeing atrocities in Vietnam. Many thousands of Boat People were resettled in NZ and Australia. The use of the term now seems more than a little contrived... especially if we take into account the massive effort that went into the proudly British and Allied landings in Normandy on D Day in WWII. Were you aware of how many boats were requisitioned by the armed forces from their private owners to enable the invasion of mainland Europe by a heavily armed and hostile force?

6 that I can see for Normandy. Are you confusing that with the small boats used in Dunkirk?

Jock42 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 8:42 am

Guy Smiley wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:47 am

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:37 am

I gave you the benefit of the doubt above, but I believe you’re now posting in bad faith.

Who are you to say who is or is not a bad actor? There are various agencies that investigate refugee claims and their resources far outstrip those who may or may not be relying on mainstream media as their informed sources...

and the term 'boat people' was coined in the 70s I believe, to describe the massive movement of people fleeing atrocities in Vietnam. Many thousands of Boat People were resettled in NZ and Australia. The use of the term now seems more than a little contrived... especially if we take into account the massive effort that went into the proudly British and Allied landings in Normandy on D Day in WWII. Were you aware of how many boats were requisitioned by the armed forces from their private owners to enable the invasion of mainland Europe by a heavily armed and hostile force?

6 that I can see for Normandy. Are you confusing that with the small boats used in Dunkirk?

I didn't care for accuracy, I was fighting Farage with Farage.

Renamed to dinghy people due to the apparent confusion.

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 8:41 am

C69 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 8:33 am

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:45 am

I don’t think that’s true. The Rwanda scheme was not something which fits that narrative.If anything, it was too excessive. And I’m sure you’d agree our Home Secretary’s did want it to work.

But I’m not here to defend the government, except to hope for a way forward from here, and hope for constructive thoughts.

Ths Government has proved it is not capable of managing immigration, it's like arsonists complaining about the size of a fire whilst throwing petrol on it to dampen the flames.

It’s definitely failed so far. The numbers tell you that. But the implication was that they had no intention of solving it. I think that’s very untrue.

I think they have an intention of solving the folk arriving by boats, but that's just a sideshow in terms of numbers. I don't think they have any intention of solving the much easier issue to solve (by numbers), the 600,000 folk arriving legally. The country runs on cheap imported labour and universities now rely on the foreign students. The issue you have, obviously, is that students leave uni and the cheap labour either for the NHS or agriculture gets fucked off with the pay and conditions and does other things, so they all need replacing and so it goes on.

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 8:41 am

C69 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 8:33 am

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:45 am

I don’t think that’s true. The Rwanda scheme was not something which fits that narrative.If anything, it was too excessive. And I’m sure you’d agree our Home Secretary’s did want it to work.

But I’m not here to defend the government, except to hope for a way forward from here, and hope for constructive thoughts.

Ths Government has proved it is not capable of managing immigration, it's like arsonists complaining about the size of a fire whilst throwing petrol on it to dampen the flames.

It’s definitely failed so far. The numbers tell you that. But the implication was that they had no intention of solving it. I think that’s very untrue.

Oh I agree, they have been in power for 13 years and the numbers are through the roof.
The are the problem and have precided over a period of record influx. Time and time again false promises and incompetence.
The Government are wholly devoid of any grasp of what to do other than spunk money on hotels or soundbites about shipping immigrants off to Africa.
Useless utterly useless.

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 8:35 am As Gog and others have alluded to, you can't seriously address this issue without understanding that with net migration at over half a million for a couple of years running (and little sign of it slowing down) we're heading towards an absolute infrastructure car crash that will lead to a significant drop in living standards for most of us.

Yeah, this is my main concern. We are one of the most densely populated countries in Europe as is and the net migration figures are not sustainable. Not to mention I'm a tree-hugger who's taken the WWF's latest 'UK is one of the most nature depleted countries in the world' campaign very much to heart. I think it's important to keep the land green and pleasant and repopulated with the critters we've been systematically wiping out. Even many of our seemingly plentiful animals like sparrows have been in massive decline over the last 40 years and it's directly down to humans and our spread into their habititats. That can't happen if we keep absorbing more and more people.

The impression given from a lot of reportage is there's a majority of working age males trying to migrate for better economic opportunities than because they warrant refugee status. I'd like us to properly fund and staff our border and immigration services so that they can increase the rate at which they can process claimants. Whether refugee to harboured or economic migrant to be expelled, far too many spend far too long in limbo waitinng for their case to be handled.

We should be doing much more to target the trafficking gangs creating the small boat problem.

TB63 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 8:04 am Kicking off here in rural Wales.
Stradey Park hotel is set to house 300 migrants. This hotel is on the outskirts of Llanelli, it's a mile from town center in a village with 1 shop and 2 pubs. They're not providing cooking facilities for these families, so wtf are they going to do all day and how can they feed themselves?..

They can't feed themselves because hostile environment policies prevented asylum seekers from working. It was supposed to reduce pull factors and stop asylum seekers "stealing all the jobs". The Tories then underfunded the asylum system to such an extent that it couldn't process the claims. The outcome is the hotels.

Because of the hostile environment it doesn't get much better for them when their asylum claim is processed and they get refugee status (which happens in a majority of cases?). Technically they should be able to work and all the rest. In reality the hostile environment turns ordinary people into gate keepers of the policy (employers, landlords, banks, and so on), these people don't always understand all the rules, the rules can change (someone who isn't an illegal immigrant can latter become one), and the penalties for non-compliance with the hostile environment can potentially sink a business. There's not many landlords that are going to take on a refugee with no credit history, no deposit, no stable job, and an immigration status they're weary of. The same goes for employers. So all those people disappear into their own sub communities and/or they end up exploited in some way.

The only way to properly fix this, is to give these people ILR (the highest level of visa) or British citizenship. Most of them are likely going to end up at those destinations anyway, this would just save everyone years and huge costs.

GogLais wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 8:08 am As I said on the Tories thread - on current trends (might go up or down over the years) we’ll be looking at the equivalent of another London in ten years time. That’s a major issue to address. Obviously.

But that's all overwhelmingly from legal migration.

1. The UK needs immigration to fill skills shortages. This is inherent to the demand of an "Australian points based immigration system". All that's keeping the UK out of recession and permanent stagnation at the moment, is immigration.
2. The "Australian points based immigration system" now exists in the UK. People entirely legally come mainly from the Commonwealth to work in the UK. Pretty sure the UK government advertisers for workers in some African countries (Nigeria and Kenya), but Google isn't throwing up much when I try and check that.
3. These are highly productive people, the highly skilled people the UK public says it wants. So this creates additional demand. Skilled migration means more migration. Which like a game of snakes and ladders sends participants back to step 1.

The same thing happened in Australia, the "points based immigration system" meant Australia's highest ever immigration levels (in absolute terms) and new/larger Asian origin populations.

The people who used the "Australian points based immigration system" as an election gimmick, admitted years back it was a dog whistle and that those they were conning associated "Australian" and "skills" with "white". The same conmen pulled the same trick with Brexit, a lot of people were conned into thinking leaving the EU meant ending immigration by (as one poster put it) "pool shitters".

There's no chance any of this is going to change much. What is going to happen, is returning British citizens will be removed from the immigration numbers and students too. The books will be cooked.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:15 am

The impression given from a lot of reportage is there's a majority of working age males trying to migrate for better economic opportunities than because they warrant refugee status. I'd like us to properly fund and staff our border and immigration services so that they can increase the rate at which they can process claimants. Whether refugee to harboured or economic migrant to be expelled, far too many spend far too long in limbo waitinng for their case to be handled.

We should be doing much more to target the trafficking gangs creating the small boat problem.

So let’s put those who are waiting for the applications to work with our councils. Helping preserve our roads and our green spaces. That might help filter out a few free holiday seekers from those who are desperate to be away from their home country.

However, to your last point, on traffickers. As you say earlier, these “majority of working age males trying to migrate for better economic opportunities” - they are not being trafficked.

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:24 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:15 am
The impression given from a lot of reportage is there's a majority of working age males trying to migrate for better economic opportunities than because they warrant refugee status. I'd like us to properly fund and staff our border and immigration services so that they can increase the rate at which they can process claimants. Whether refugee to harboured or economic migrant to be expelled, far too many spend far too long in limbo waitinng for their case to be handled.

We should be doing much more to target the trafficking gangs creating the small boat problem.

So let’s put those who are waiting for the applications to work with our councils. Helping preserve our roads and our green spaces. That might help filter out a few free holiday seekers from those who are desperate to be away from their home country.

However, to your last point, on traffickers. As you say earlier, these “majority of working age males trying to migrate for better economic opportunities” - they are not being trafficked.

One problem you'd have with putting them to work is sufficient supervision to ensure that some of them don't just slip off. I also don't trust governments not to implement such work parties in a way that wouldn't undercut the wages and employment of Brits already doing those things for councils.

Maybe trafficking is the wrong word as it somewhat suggests people being moved against their will, but it absolutely is gangs of the unscrupulous, if not outright criminals, facilitating the movement of the 'boat people'.

Nothing new here.

The vast majority of those picked up in channel crossings refugee applications are accepted (when we bother to process). The vast majority of them come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan + horn of Africa. Former British colonies and spheres of influence.

People whinging "send them back to France" are just the usual fuckwards who don't want UK to share any responsibility based on nothing more than "we're geographically further away from the problem (that we've often had an active hand in), not our problem". They're not interested in helping, in "legal routes", stopping traffickers or the nonsense they come out with when challenged. Of course, 99.99% of commentary on these "bad actors" have never even spoken to a refugee or have the foggiest just how many get picked up and deposited with communities pending processing.

Everyone, without exception, knows the best way to deal with it is tackle at source. We don't want to do that. Not war zones, not ecological disaster area, not even be aggressive about governance stuff like homophobic laws in Uganda/Malaysia we cough it aside at commonwealth meetings.

It's not about constructive thoughts, it's just simple bile and whining. Just whine blaming others and hope the problem goes away. And no, UK is not alone or unique in attitude.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:29 am

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:24 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:15 am
The impression given from a lot of reportage is there's a majority of working age males trying to migrate for better economic opportunities than because they warrant refugee status. I'd like us to properly fund and staff our border and immigration services so that they can increase the rate at which they can process claimants. Whether refugee to harboured or economic migrant to be expelled, far too many spend far too long in limbo waitinng for their case to be handled.

We should be doing much more to target the trafficking gangs creating the small boat problem.

So let’s put those who are waiting for the applications to work with our councils. Helping preserve our roads and our green spaces. That might help filter out a few free holiday seekers from those who are desperate to be away from their home country.

However, to your last point, on traffickers. As you say earlier, these “majority of working age males trying to migrate for better economic opportunities” - they are not being trafficked.

One problem you'd have with putting them to work is sufficient supervision to ensure that some of them don't just slip off. I also don't trust governments not to implement such work parties in a way that wouldn't undercut the wages and employment of Brits already doing those things for councils.

Maybe trafficking is the wrong word as it somewhat suggests people being moved against their will, but it absolutely is gangs of the unscrupulous, if not outright criminals, facilitating the movement of the 'boat people'.

The supervision piece could be handled by the existing council workers. I don’t see that as a problem. They’d need supervisors with know how. And the existing guys would then have added seniority. And finally our potholes would be patched and our walkways cleared of nettles

I guess however, what happens when someone refuses to work. Lose their allowance?

TheNatalShark wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:29 am Nothing new here.

The vast majority of those picked up in channel crossings refugee applications are accepted (when we bother to process). The vast majority of them come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan + horn of Africa. Former British colonies and spheres of influence.

People whinging "send them back to France" are just the usual fuckwards who don't want UK to share any responsibility based on nothing more than "we're geographically further away from the problem (that we've often had an active hand in), not our problem". They're not interested in helping, in "legal routes", stopping traffickers or the nonsense they come out with when challenged. Of course, 99.99% of commentary on these "bad actors" have never even spoken to a refugee or have the foggiest just how many get picked up and deposited with communities pending processing.

Everyone, without exception, knows the best way to deal with it is tackle at source. We don't want to do that. Not war zones, not ecological disaster area, not even be aggressive about governance stuff like homophobic laws in Uganda/Malaysia we cough it aside at commonwealth meetings.

It's not about constructive thoughts, it's just simple bile and whining. Just whine blaming others and hope the problem goes away. And no, UK is not alone or unique in attitude.

1. The make-up of people crossing on small boats has been changing
The make-up of people on small boats has been changing. From January 2018 to June 2022, Iranian (28%) and Iraqi (20%) nationals represented nearly half of all small boat arrivals. In the first six months of 2022, over half (51%) of small boat arrivals were from three nationalities – Albanian (18%), Afghan (18%) and Iranian (15%).

However, since May 2022, there has been a significant increase in the number of Albanians crossing the channel on small boats. From May to September 2022 Albanian nationals alone comprised 42% of small boat crossings, with 11,102 Albanians arriving by small boat in those five months. In contrast, over the whole of 2021 there were a total of 815 Albanian nationals who arrived by this method. In some weeks over the summer, more than half of small boat arrivals claimed to be Albanian.

Tackle it at source. What will keep Albanians at home?

Or do you mean France?

It's not about constructive thoughts, it's just simple bile and whining. Just whine blaming others and hope the problem goes away.

Furthermore, this thread is exactly supposed to be about being constructive, and not just whining and blaming the Tories.

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:40 am

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:29 am

Ymx wrote: ↑Tue Jun 06, 2023 9:24 am

So let’s put those who are waiting for the applications to work with our councils. Helping preserve our roads and our green spaces. That might help filter out a few free holiday seekers from those who are desperate to be away from their home country.

However, to your last point, on traffickers. As you say earlier, these “majority of working age males trying to migrate for better economic opportunities” - they are not being trafficked.

One problem you'd have with putting them to work is sufficient supervision to ensure that some of them don't just slip off. I also don't trust governments not to implement such work parties in a way that wouldn't undercut the wages and employment of Brits already doing those things for councils.

Maybe trafficking is the wrong word as it somewhat suggests people being moved against their will, but it absolutely is gangs of the unscrupulous, if not outright criminals, facilitating the movement of the 'boat people'.

The supervision piece could be handled by the existing council workers. I don’t see that as a problem. They’d need supervisors with know how. And the existing guys would then have added seniority. And finally our potholes would be patched and our walkways cleared of nettles

I guess however, what happens when someone refuses to work. Lose their allowance?

I like your optimism, but I can't help but think back to what I've seen of old prison work parties in the States. What chiefly kept prisoners from running off was either being chained to each other or the presence of several armed corrections officers who would happily shoot them if it looked like someone was thinking about running off.