Sending migrants back

[littleyellowbirdie 2,626]

Just now, Well b back said:

I asked my elected MP I really thought they were stating facts.

And indeed looking a major success as only 547 crossed the channel over the weekend, with an estimated 2000 thwarted by the French.

I guess word hasn't got through in the Calais camps yet, but the fact they're all running for Ireland suggests it'll soon dry up.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

5 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What Ireland's doing is breaking international law isn't it? The UK isn't part of the Dublin agreement, so they can't legally return them to the UK if they've gone from the UK to the RoI.

Besides, seeing as they came from another EU country in the first place they should sort it out for themselves if they enter Ireland under their own steam.

Very surprised that Ireland isn't coming in for more criticism from the usual suspects on here.

Very interesting that this migration to Ireland is being attributed to the possibility of going to Rwanda. That bodes well.

I would have thought that if a migrant turned up at a national border (Ireland) and claimed asylum, that country wouldn't be able to send them anywhere until they had processed the asylum claim.

And I'm pretty sure that Ireland has the same sort of lawyers as the UK who see a gold mine in handling asylum cases and making the processing of them drag out for years.

Id be very surprised to see a quick return to the UK from Ireland.

[Herman 9,891]

7 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

So France’s belligerence in refusing any cooperation on the migrant problem after Brexit as punishment may come back to hurt Ireland and lead to them becoming a dumping ground for those who would instead have tried to enter Britain?

Bootiful! 

Jesus Christ. You ripped up the agreements we had with France. Nothing to do with belligerence. You shut our border while leaving the other side completely open. You brexiters are never going to take resposibility for your own stupidity, are you? (That is purely rhetorical.)

[Well b back 3,328]

7 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I guess word hasn't got through in the Calais camps yet, but the fact they're all running for Ireland suggests it'll soon dry up.

That’s not my understanding, they are coming to England. Clearly the few are then being given free travel to NI.

The number crossing so far this year has increased considerably, and surely if we get into a migrant war those numbers will double with the help of the French.

Still don’t understand Sunak says the boats will stop, yet they are going up. He is also now using a few going to Ireland as a victory. They are leading us a merry dance again by the looks of it, by using a truth to create a lie. 

[Herman 9,891]

This is Britain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nightmare_Neighbour_Next_Door

[Naturalcynic 691]

13 minutes ago, Well b back said:

That’s not my understanding, they are coming to England. Clearly the few are then being given free travel to NI.

The number crossing so far this year has increased considerably, and surely if we get into a migrant war those numbers will double with the help of the French.

Still don’t understand Sunak says the boats will stop, yet they are going up. He is also now using a few going to Ireland as a victory. They are leading us a merry dance again by the looks of it, by using a truth to create a lie. 

No idea about their travel arrangements to NI.  Perhaps some are already being accommodated there in hotels etc.  But this whole sorry issue could be reduced enormously if the EU stopped being so precious about free movement between its member states and actually started enforcing robust border policies particularly in those countries where the economic migrants first arrive, i.e. Italy, Greece, Spain etc.

Edited April 29 by Naturalcynic

[littleyellowbirdie 2,626]

 

40 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Clearly the few are then being given free travel to NI.

How is that clear? Who's providing the free travel and how?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,626]

1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

No idea about their travel arrangements to NI.  Perhaps some are already being accommodated there in hotels etc.  But this whole sorry issue could be reduced enormously if the EU stopped being so precious about free movement between its member states and actually started enforcing robust border policies particularly in those countries where the economic migrants first arrive, i.e. Italy, Greece, Spain etc.

I think it's great news that Ireland is having some stress over this. Finally, the EU is going to be forced to start talking sensibly about cooperating on this. To be honest, it's in our interests for this to be become as much a crisis for Ireland as for the UK in order to get the EU to the table.

There's an easy answer to all of this: The EU should invite us into the new reformed migration scheme, which solves France's problem of trying to stop boats and Ireland's problem of stopping migrants from NI. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/eu-migration-overhaul-stresses-fast-track-deportations-and-limited-appeal-rights-for-asylum-seekers/ar-AA1ntycD

Then we won't need the Rwanda scheme either.

Edited April 29 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,864]

Too much political nonsense here,  not enough facts.

What are the numbers?

Clearly the Brexiters never thought through NI - we by necessity have an 'open border' to Eire (just walk across) and the Unionists hardly want a full international style hard border in the Irish Sea.

The Dublin III agreement (which we left with Brexit) has been superseded anyway the new EU 'sharing' arrangement - Asylum and Migration Management Regulation (AMMR) (of which we still are no part). This is really what Cameron was stating a week ago - we have no way 'back' to send migrants  'back' to the EU. We did before.

The CTA (Common Travel Area) between Eire and UK (our own 'Shengen' type zone) which started in 1922 makes it very difficult to stop or control people coming and going especially into NI. Clearly any repatriation of people either way comes under jurisdiction of the CTA. 

As to those claiming that the recent Irish concern is because of the so called 'positive' deterrent effect of Rwanda - well stupid is as stupid does Sunak included. Its's just the political silly season (elections) and point scoring for the unthinking. Be careful what you wish for given the open 'back-door' border which we can't lock.

I'll wait to see the actual facts.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,626]

13 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

The Dublin III agreement (which we left with Brexit) has been superseded anyway the new EU 'sharing' arrangement - Asylum and Migration Management Regulation (AMMR) (of which we still are no part). This is really what Cameron was stating a week ago - we have no way 'back' to send migrants  'back' to the EU. We did before.

 

I'll wait to see the actual facts.

The facts are not having us in the EU scheme is now creating problems for both France and Ireland, which increases the chances of the EU scheme becoming an option for the UK again.

I strongly suspect the offer won't be made until Labour are in power to let them take the credit.

Edited April 29 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,864]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

The facts are not having us in the EU scheme is now creating problems for both France and Ireland, which increases the chances of the EU scheme becoming an option for the UK again.

As you're not in the UK you probably didn't follow the debate many many months ago on this. The Tories (on pure anti EU-everything) wanted no part of it and indeed attacked SKS that he might think about it  - you know sharing such migrants across the EU.

For the foreseeable future its not an option until the punch drunk Brexiters and the UK generally sober up!

[littleyellowbirdie 2,626]

4 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

As you're not in the UK you probably didn't follow the debate many many months ago on this. The Tories (on pure anti EU-everything) wanted no part of it and indeed attacked SKS that he might think about it  - you know sharing such migrants across the EU.

For the foreseeable future its not an option until the punch drunk Brexiters and the UK generally sober up!

The ERG wouldn't, I'm sure you're right. The likes of Sunak would probably take it, but can't afford the division in the party.

We don't know though; the fact is the offer hasn't been made by the EU yet.

Edited April 29 by littleyellowbirdie

[Barbe bleu 838]

9 hours ago, Well b back said:

 

I think Ireland ( I could possibly be wrong ) are accusing us of transporting migrants to NI, because of the loophole that we are now classed as an unsafe country and they can’t even turn them back because of that, before they even cross their border.

I'm not sure i read it that way. 

I've not read any suggestion that the UK is transporting migrants to the Republic. The suggeation is that migrants that have made it to the UK are crossing the border into the Republic under their own steam because they fear being sent to Rwanda.

The UK being unsafe thing is about the ability of the Republic to return migrants once they have made the crossing, not about stopping them from doing so in the first place.   

[Yellow Fever 3,864]

18 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The ERG wouldn't, I'm sure you're right. The likes of Sunak would probably take it, but can't afford the division in the party.

It the same thing LYB - 'populist' nonsense in being unable to make the hard thought through pragmatic decision as opposed to what seems 'simple' but is anything but.

Immigration into Europe is a continental wide problem and clearly hardly respects international boundaries - it needs a continental wide solutions - The AMMR is a very good start.

Edited April 29 by Yellow Fever

[littleyellowbirdie 2,626]

34 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

It the same thing LYB - 'populist' nonsense in being unable to make the hard thought through pragmatic decision as opposed to what seems 'simple' but is anything but.

Immigration into Europe is a continental wide problem and clearly hardly respects international boundaries - it needs a continental wide solutions - The AMMR is a very good start.

The UK actively sought to negotiate to continue participation in the Dublin protocol during the withdrawal talks. Post-Brexit, the EU hasn't wanted to discuss such a bilateral approach with us; the knock-on effects of Rwanda are increasing the chances of the EU being prepared to entertain the pragmatism you're talking about, which they haven't been thus far. In some respects, the EU's intransigence has driven the necessity for such  unilateral measures and the negative consequences they're experiencing in Ireland.

Sometimes you have to escalate to de-escalate.

 

Edited April 29 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,864]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'm not sure i read it that way. 

I've not read any suggestion that the UK is transporting migrants to the Republic. The suggeation is that migrants that have made it to the UK are crossing the border into the Republic under their own steam because they fear being sent to Rwanda.

The UK being unsafe thing is about the ability of the Republic to return migrants once they have made the crossing, not about stopping them from doing so in the first place.   

Is that 'refoulement' 😉 ?

 

[sonyc 5,542]

@Yellow Fever....."ts's just the political silly season (elections) and point scoring for the unthinking. Be careful what you wish for given the open 'back-door' border which we can't lock. I'll wait to see the actual facts."

 

This snippet from the Telegraph today:

30,000 versus 672,000.

Policy a cynical "distraction"?

Looks like one to me. A costly one too.

[TheGunnShow 6,165]

2 minutes ago, sonyc said:

@Yellow Fever....."ts's just the political silly season (elections) and point scoring for the unthinking. Be careful what you wish for given the open 'back-door' border which we can't lock. I'll wait to see the actual facts."

 

This snippet from the Telegraph today:

30,000 versus 672,000.

Policy a cynical "distraction"?

Looks like one to me. A costly one too.

Exactly this. The real problem is the backlog of claims that haven't been sorted, either due to a lack of staff, a lack of will to remedy the problem, or whatever.

[A Load of Squit 5,270]

Richard Tice has been on Politics Live making a ** of himself over this issue, who'd be stupid enough to agree with him?

 

[Yellow Fever 3,864]

10 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Exactly this. The real problem is the backlog of claims that haven't been sorted, either due to a lack of staff, a lack of will to remedy the problem, or whatever.

I would add that despite the Tory cynicism and loss of perspective of the actual numbers by some as noted - we do need still need to stop or dissuade the small boat crossings (and subsequent deaths and distress) by sensible means - which means offer a rational alternative!

I think it was said it's now impossible to arrive in the UK and claim asylum here (legally) by any means! 

[TheGunnShow 6,165]

3 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I would add that despite the Tory cynicism and loss of perspective of the actual numbers by some as noted - we do need still need to stop or dissuade the small boat crossings (and subsequent deaths and distress) by sensible means - which means offer a rational alternative!

I think it was said it's now impossible to arrive in the UK and claim asylum here (legally) by any means! 

Well, Braverman didn't know what they were.
 

 

[Yellow Fever 3,864]

30 minutes ago, sonyc said:

@Yellow Fever....."ts's just the political silly season (elections) and point scoring for the unthinking. Be careful what you wish for given the open 'back-door' border which we can't lock. I'll wait to see the actual facts."

 

This snippet from the Telegraph today:

30,000 versus 672,000.

Policy a cynical "distraction"?

Looks like one to me. A costly one too.

It''s almost as if the Telegraph is thinking it had better abandon Tory policy itself and stay rational  -  to save itself from insanity!

Edited April 29 by Yellow Fever

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,051]

I just find it strange how fixated folk are on the "economic migrants" when in truth most of "us English" are descended from economic migrants.

That people are so easily diverted into worrying about the 30K or so who arrive by boats and not the actual total of net migration is baffling to me. 

Basically, due to austerity measures, our asylum system is broken, rather than spending money on a world class immigration system we would rather **** money on hotels and gimmicks.

We would much rather blame the poor sods in boats, the French, the Irish etc rather than put the decision makers in this country under the spotlight, and I would say the same regardless of which party is in power because I cannot stand any of them...........

[TheGunnShow 6,165]

1 minute ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

I just find it strange how fixated folk are on the "economic migrants" when in truth most of "us English" are descended from economic migrants.

That people are so easily diverted into worrying about the 30K or so who arrive by boats and not the actual total of net migration is baffling to me. 

Basically, due to austerity measures, our asylum system is broken, rather than spending money on a world class immigration system we would rather **** money on hotels and gimmicks.

We would much rather blame the poor sods in boats, the French, the Irish etc rather than put the decision makers in this country under the spotlight, and I would say the same regardless of which party is in power because I cannot stand any of them...........

Well said, it's kicking down and not up. And if we had a media that actually did its job and genuinely questioned those in power, then we might actually get somewhere.

[Yellow Fever 3,864]

14 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Well, Braverman didn't know what they were.
 

 

Clearly she either very very dim or is totally hoodwinking her even dimmer hapless supporters for the policy.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

2 hours ago, sonyc said:

@Yellow Fever....."ts's just the political silly season (elections) and point scoring for the unthinking. Be careful what you wish for given the open 'back-door' border which we can't lock. I'll wait to see the actual facts."

 

This snippet from the Telegraph today:

30,000 versus 672,000.

Policy a cynical "distraction"?

Looks like one to me. A costly one too.

The big immigration problem has always been the legal and not the illegal immigration numbers. We build around 200k homes per year but the population has increased 700k for the past two years, which requires house-building at around 500k per year, which we will never reach. and wat new housing is built will be prioritised for the homeless newcomers to our shores. So if you are a young norwich lad just finishing university, you may find yourself employed in London but still travelling in from your parents home in norfolk because you'll be priced out of London rentals and buying won't be possible until you inherit after your parent's death.

Boris Johnson promised an Australian points based system to keep out the low-skilled immigrant, instead the policy lets in low-skilled and low-paid workers, so depressing wages for indigenous working class people. And then we have a generous allowance of spouses and children of international students into the country, who are also allowed to remain for a number of years after graduating, and not just high level studies at the top universities, but low grade studies at low-level educational establishments where no check is made on whether the students are studying or working, means that net immigration remains at unsustainable levels.

The Tories could have changed the immigration rules to reduce the inflows very easily. Braverman approached Johnson and Sunak on many occasions to discuss tightening up the rules but both men did not want to meet with her. So we can assume that both men are quite ok with the level and type of legal immigration into the country, and that all the noise surrounding the boats and illegal migration is just a distraction to the real problem of the pressure on public services caused by unfettered legal immigration

[Fen Canary 927]

1 hour ago, Rock The Boat said:

The big immigration problem has always been the legal and not the illegal immigration numbers. We build around 200k homes per year but the population has increased 700k for the past two years, which requires house-building at around 500k per year, which we will never reach. and wat new housing is built will be prioritised for the homeless newcomers to our shores. So if you are a young norwich lad just finishing university, you may find yourself employed in London but still travelling in from your parents home in norfolk because you'll be priced out of London rentals and buying won't be possible until you inherit after your parent's death.

Boris Johnson promised an Australian points based system to keep out the low-skilled immigrant, instead the policy lets in low-skilled and low-paid workers, so depressing wages for indigenous working class people. And then we have a generous allowance of spouses and children of international students into the country, who are also allowed to remain for a number of years after graduating, and not just high level studies at the top universities, but low grade studies at low-level educational establishments where no check is made on whether the students are studying or working, means that net immigration remains at unsustainable levels.

The Tories could have changed the immigration rules to reduce the inflows very easily. Braverman approached Johnson and Sunak on many occasions to discuss tightening up the rules but both men did not want to meet with her. So we can assume that both men are quite ok with the level and type of legal immigration into the country, and that all the noise surrounding the boats and illegal migration is just a distraction to the real problem of the pressure on public services caused by unfettered legal immigration

Why does everybody on here always link legal and illegal immigration in an attempt to deflect from the latter?

Is legal immigration too high? Of course it is, but it’s a seperate problem to that of people entering illegally by crossing the Channel. Wanting to reduce legal immigration as well as enacting policies to deter the illegal kind is a perfectly reasonable point of view to hold, you don’t have to pick one or the other.

Likewise you can want a more sensible asylum policy going forward whilst wanting the government to do something to stop the boats now while that policy is developed.

I’m also enjoying the irony of how for the last 8 years Ireland has been held up as this tolerant, forward looking country as opposed to the knuckle dragging xenophobic Leave voting Britons, yet for the first time ever they’ve got a few asylum seekers heading to their shores and the people are rioting and setting fire to hotels housing refugees. 

[Daz Sparks 1,208]

4 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Clearly she either very very dim or is totally hoodwinking her even dimmer hapless supporters for the policy.

This, sadly, is the calibre of the the Tory Party's finest. To think that she was somehow feted to be Prime Minister, she is in many ways no better than Truss. 

Edited April 29 by Daz Sparks

[littleyellowbirdie 2,626]

5 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

I would add that despite the Tory cynicism and loss of perspective of the actual numbers by some as noted - we do need still need to stop or dissuade the small boat crossings (and subsequent deaths and distress) by sensible means - which means offer a rational alternative!

I think it was said it's now impossible to arrive in the UK and claim asylum here (legally) by any means! 

So what's the rational alternative?

[A Load of Squit 5,270]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

So what's the rational alternative?

We should be like Australia and allow asylum seekers to use an alternative (the vast majority enter the country by air and claim asylum)  to travelling in small boats, that's why they managed to reduce the number of people trying to enter the country by boat.

Edited April 29 by A Load of Squit