Illegal migrants crossing the Channel.

[Taf]

Two UK Border Force boats to return from abroad to patrol English Channel in response to migrants crossing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46725343

Not so much of an arduous and dangerous journey if they are picked up early and brought to the UK. Good move? Humane move? Will spur even more on to set off in little boats to get here?

And where were our Border Force boats?

[jfman]

Our Border Force boats were in the Mediterranean Sea.

[heero_yuy]

If we start providing a ferry service to the UK from the channel midway line they'll be coming in droves, no doubt waved on by the French authorities who'll be glad to see the back of them.

Between a rock and a hard place.

We need to discourage these people, but we can’t let them drown.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Between a rock and a hard place.

We need to discourage these people, but we can’t let them drown.

The French seem to be quite happy to let them drown as they don't seem to be doing much about it.


If you're going to have a border-free area such as the Schengen zone, then surely every country in that zone has to properly deal with people who shouldn't be in the zone, as otherwise they are free to move to other Schengen zone countries illegally.


Just look at the fuss the EU makes of the potential movement of goods from NI to the EU, in a post-Brexit world, that don't quite meet their product rules.

We certainly cannot let them drown. We do need to enforce the border and our laws though.

However we should place this in context. In terms of our immigration figures this is a very small amount of people. As Andrew Neil points out: https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1079709883862302720

Channel "migrant crisis" in context:
220 have attempted crossing in last 2 months, many well-educated Iranians.
750,000 "boat people" landed Greece in 2015, 150,00 in Italy. 10,000 came ashore Greece in 1 day.
7,500 claim UK asylum every 3 months, very few by crossing Channel

If every single person who attempted the crossing made it then it would barely make a dent in the numbers. If they are 'highly educated Iranians' then they probably have both a good claim for asylum and can add something to the UK in addition to that.

Obviously we can't allow that because we don't want to set a bad precedent but lets have some perspective.

220 becomes 500, 500 then becomes 5,000, then 50,000 and so on and so on. To what end do we say no, turn back and go back to France and in larger part, Europe, where they have passed through, a totally safe EU Country to get here???

[jfman]

The logistics of moving that many people make it quite unlikely.

As you say, it's not like they are in danger in France or the rest of the EU, hence the numbers being tiny.

The numbers are small and there's no real evidence that it's rising. It's just convenient for this Government to highlight it just now.

Originally Posted by jfman

The logistics of moving that many people make it quite unlikely.

As you say, it's not like they are in danger in France or the rest of the EU, hence the numbers being tiny.

The numbers are small and there's no real evidence that it's rising. It's just convenient for this Government to highlight it just now.

It's not the government highlighting the issue - it's the media.

[jfman]

Two cheeks of the same rear end.

[nomadking]

Is 100,000 every year, a small number?

analysis points to a gross annual addition of nearly 105,000 visa overstayers, clandestine arrivals and failed asylum seekers.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Is 100,000 every year, a small number?

Are visa overstayers ordinarily found in boats in the channel?

Originally Posted by nomadking

Is 100,000 every year, a small number?

Damien was specifically pointing out the focus of the news, which was the Channel crossers - you are conflating issues.

And you are quoting Migration Watch, which has "form" in rabble-rousing and overstated numbers...

btw, you appear to have accidentally missed out the part of the article which contradicts your point

Taking into account an average of just over 35,000 departures a year, this works out at a net growth of nearly 70,000, according to the campaign body.

It described the scale of illegal immigration as a “scandal”.

And it called for measures including the rollout of ID cards.

But the Home Office said it did not “recognise” the figure, saying it is not possible to estimate the size of the illegal population “with any confidence”.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Damien was specifically pointing out the focus of the news, which was the Channel crossers - you are conflating issues.

And you are quoting Migration Watch, which has "form" in rabble-rousing and overstated numbers...

btw, you appear to have accidentally missed out the part of the article which contradicts your point

"Damien" stated, "In terms of our immigration figures this is a very small amount of people.". Therefore to use an estimated total figure is valid as part of a reply to his post.

BBC News

As of last March, there were 600,000 people who should have left the country for whom there was no record of their departure.

That is just since 2015 and is just the overstayers and not the complete picture.

Exit checks were stopped in 1998 and reinstated in 2015.Now most people are being counted in and out, but there are particular groups of people it's difficult to track, like those travelling by coach or ferry, or leaving via the Common Travel Area with Ireland.

They act as a "pull factor" and as a support network to new illegal arrivals.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Between a rock and a hard place.

We need to discourage these people, but we can’t let them drown.

Wouldn't the simplest thing to do be to announce that anyone crossing in this way or in the back of lorries will never be given permanent resident status here, or is that to simplistic