Asylum Seekers & Channel Crossings

[alex397]

The problem for the RNLI is that they have finite resources and sooner or later they are going to have to choose between assisting a boatful of refugees/ asylum seekers / economic migrants and professional seafarers and their passengers. Not a decision I'd want to have to make.

Perhaps we should make Farage head of the RNLI then? I don’t think he would have a problem in picking and choosing which people to save.
The RNLI have always had finite resources, and have always been under pressure. Thankfully they’ve seen a surge in donations recently, so hopefully that will help. Maybe we should invest more in the RNLI then if they are having more to deal with.
But ultimately it is down to the government and Border Force to sort out, and nothing to do with the RNLI.

Those sound like reasons why people might want to come to the UK. They don't sound to me like things that would force them to come to the UK, making an extremely perilous trip in the process, if they are already in a democratic country in which they can claim asylum.

Like I have said, they have already risked their lives getting to France so they may think they may as well try and get to the UK, where they feel they might have a better chance at a decent life.
But anyway, the vast majority of refugees don’t want to make that journey anyway. They head to other Middle Eastern or African or European countries.

If refugees were made to go to the first ‘safe democratic’ country and no further, then places like Greece and Italy would be completely overwhelmed. I often see comments which say that asylum seekers should be made to ‘go back to France’ as it’s a safe country. With that logic, France would make them go back to Italy, and then Italy would be overwhelmed.
Dealing with this issue is an international issue, not something we can just let other countries deal with. But the hard right don’t care about that.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I never thought an organisation like the RNLI would be dragged into a pathetic ‘culture war’

Exactly what my wife said, she thought they would be untouchable as respected from all sides of whatever this is.

 

[tbtc]

The hard right lost the plot there; the RNLI is one of Britain's finest institutions and they tried to smear them.

This is something I'm finding interesting about the last few months - we've had at least five years of the right wing playing and winning "culture wars", finding the issues to focus on that they know are red meat for voters (even if not the most important problems, in the grand scheme of things)

But something has gone wrong in 2021 - I don't know whether the right have got lazy/sloppy with their targeting or it's that their opponents are more aware of things and are better at fighting back, no longer pushovers...

...we've seen the booing of the "taking the knee" backfire badly (with the England players and Manager winning the PR battle)...
...we've seen organisations like the National Trust put up a robust defence to complaints that they were focussing too much on the awkward bits of history (instead of portraying the simplistic version that avoids mentioning issues like the Viscount who built a stately home having partly done so with the profits from his slave labour)...
...we've seen the right make the unforced error of taking on the RNLI and this rebounding badly, with any public anger about refugees dwarfed by public support for the brave people going out into choppy waters to rescue human beings in need...

...the right used to be good at finding these wedge issues that got people worked up (e.g. how much money is your council paying on interpreters, how much of your taxes are being spent on foreign aid, how much did the EU spend on free biscuits for MEPs... all of these were "rounding errors" in terms of overall budgets, but the right used to be able to portray them as colossal wastes of money) - but the schtick isn't working any more - which means that GB News is arriving at the party just as Farage etc are finding that their party tricks are flopping

If GB News had come around ten years earlier, they'd have been reporting on stories like "NOW BONKERS EU BUREAUCRATS WANT TO BAN THE GREAT BRITISH SAUSAGE", but the faux outrage of right wing tabloids is becoming a lot tougher to confect - maybe they'll whip up a fuss about the death penalty/ abortion/ gay rights/ Muslims, but the right wing are struggling to gain ground in the kind of battles that they once dominated

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Like I have said, they have already risked their lives getting to France so they may think they may as well try and get to the UK, where they feel they might have a better chance at a decent life.
But anyway, the vast majority of refugees don’t want to make that journey anyway. They head to other Middle Eastern or African or European countries.

I'm sure that's all very true. But it doesn't change the point that a migrant who has reached France and subsequently chooses to put their own life in peril again in order to reach the UK instead of claiming asylum in France is choosing to do so - they are not - as far as I'm aware - forced to do so, and making out they are forced to do so appears to be simply not true.

If refugees were made to go to the first ‘safe democratic’ country and no further, then places like Greece and Italy would be completely overwhelmed. I often see comments which say that asylum seekers should be made to ‘go back to France’ as it’s a safe country. With that logic, France would make them go back to Italy, and then Italy would be overwhelmed.
Dealing with this issue is an international issue, not something we can just let other countries deal with. But the hard right don’t care about that.

I kinda agree with that, and to be clear I'm not particularly trying to defend Nigel Farage here. It is certainly an international issue, and it wouldn't be fair to expect Greece and Italy to take the entire burden of supporting migrants just because they are the first countries geographically to be reached. But at the same time it's politically much more nuanced than the left-wing=good, right-wing=bad thing that you and other people seem to be presenting it as. The right certainly tend to be overly concerned with numbers of migrants and and perhaps not concerned enough with the welfare of migrants (who often are genuinely fleeing awful persecution). But on the other hand, the left tends to have the opposite problem: The left rightly sees the need to treat migrants humanely, but then tends to ignore the problem that the easier you make it for migrants to get here, the more people will come - and the sad fact is that there are literally hundreds of millions of people in the World who face prejudice or persecution and who would therefore have a good case for asylum if they made it to the West. At some point you have to recognise that you can't help everybody in the way the left gives the impression of wanting to do. I don't really know what the solution is, but I think it would be very helpful if the left stopped just assuming that everyone who is concerned about potential immigration levels is somehow evil.

 

[alex397]

I'm sure that's all very true. But it doesn't change the point that a migrant who has reached France and subsequently chooses to put their own life in peril again in order to reach the UK instead of claiming asylum in France is choosing to do so - they are not - as far as I'm aware - forced to do so, and making out they are forced to do so appears to be simply not true.

I’ve never said they are forced to do to so. I’m not sure anyone says they are forced. But I can understand the good reasons why they want to make it to the UK.
Many may not be fully aware of the risks either.

I kinda agree with that, and to be clear I'm not particularly trying to defend Nigel Farage here. It is certainly an international issue, and it wouldn't be fair to expect Greece and Italy to take the entire burden of supporting migrants just because they are the first countries geographically to be reached. But at the same time it's politically much more nuanced than the left-wing=good, right-wing=bad thing that you and other people seem to be presenting it as. The right certainly tend to be overly concerned with numbers of migrants and and perhaps not concerned enough with the welfare of migrants (who often are genuinely fleeing awful persecution). But on the other hand, the left tends to have the opposite problem: The left rightly sees the need to treat migrants humanely, but then tends to ignore the problem that the easier you make it for migrants to get here, the more people will come - and the sad fact is that there are literally hundreds of millions of people in the World who face prejudice or persecution and who would therefore have a good case for asylum if they made it to the West. At some point you have to recognise that you can't help everybody in the way the left gives the impression of wanting to do. I don't really know what the solution is, but I think it would be very helpful if the left stopped just assuming that everyone who is concerned about potential immigration levels is somehow evil.

It is the hard or far right who have been pushing this anti-RNLI nonsense. Many from the right are appalled by the RNLI getting attacked, and many see the need to treat asylum seekers humanely too.
This Shouldn’t be a left/right issue. Whether someone is from the left or right we should all agree that asylum seekers are humans, and the RNLI should be rescuing them no matter who they are. Whether or not they should be coming here is another matter - that’s for the authorities to deal with. The dehumanising language used about them is awful, and we as a society should be better than that.

‘You can’t help everybody’ - It’s a phrase I often see alongside ‘we’re full’ and ‘we need to help our own first’.
Of course, there are concerns about the number of immigrants, and I do understand that. However, I think the media make it look like we are being ‘overrun’ when that’s not really the case and not very helpful either.

 

[AlterEgo]

It would benefit everyone massively to stop using migration as a political football. The Right like to use channel crossings as cover for harder and more stringent border controls. The Left like to use the issue to suggest borders have no meaning.

In the middle are people, who, genuine asylum cases or not, are nonetheless uniquely vulnerable.

The border crossings ought to be stopped. The easiest way to do this is by working with the French to place facilities within France for us to safely detain and accommodate asylum seekers and have their cases heard under the law. About half of asylum cases are successful.

 

[Typhoon]

It would benefit everyone massively to stop using migration as a political football. The Right like to use channel crossings as cover for harder and more stringent border controls. The Left like to use the issue to suggest borders have no meaning.

In the middle are people, who, genuine asylum cases or not, are nonetheless uniquely vulnerable.

The border crossings ought to be stopped. The easiest way to do this is by working with the French to place facilities within France for us to safely detain and accommodate asylum seekers and have their cases heard under the law. About half of asylum cases are successful.

Good point. The problem is that for over a decade there are politicians who've boasted that they will get immigration numbers down, and people have voted for them. And it is the numbers that count (so, say, 1,000 migrants of whom only half are refugees is better than 2,000 migrants, all of whom are genuine refugees).

My issue is that people associate, particular views to 'left' and 'right'. I know a fair number of people who would consider themselves on the left who take the Pritti Patel view on immigration, and I reckon there will be a fair few on the right who are sympathetic to us admitting refugees fleeing for their lives.

Farage will have achieved his aim, high(ish) viewing figures. The RNLI was just a convenient way of achieving them!

 

[brad465]

Good point. The problem is that for over a decade there are politicians who've boasted that they will get immigration numbers down, and people have voted for them. And it is the numbers that count (so, say, 1,000 migrants of whom only half are refugees is better than 2,000 migrants, all of whom are genuine refugees).

My issue is that people associate, particular views to 'left' and 'right'. I know a fair number of people who would consider themselves on the left who take the Pritti Patel view on immigration, and I reckon there will be a fair few on the right who are sympathetic to us admitting refugees fleeing for their lives.

Farage will have achieved his aim, high(ish) viewing figures. The RNLI was just a convenient way of achieving them!

There will never be cuts to immigration for as long as boosting GDP is widely desirable, because one needs an increasing supply of people to work and consume to boost GDP. As birth rates are low, immigration is making up the shortfall. For as long as this remains the case, politicians will only pay lip service to the issue. I imagine Farage is either naïve to this reality, or he is aware but as you say wants popularity and/or to aid the world of throwing dead cats to distract from domestic failings.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I’ve never said they are forced to do to so. I’m not sure anyone says they are forced. But I can understand the good reasons why they want to make it to the UK.

No, that's true - you didn't say they were forced to. But this sub-discussion originated in my querying someone else who did say that. Looking back at the last few posts, I think when you replied to me, I must have assumed you were defending that person's comments.

‘You can’t help everybody’ - It’s a phrase I often see alongside ‘we’re full’ and ‘we need to help our own first’.

I'm not sure what your point is there? Just because some people abuse the statement 'You can't help everybody' by attaching it to scaremongering about migrants doesn't make the statement itself any less true.

My issue is that people associate, particular views to 'left' and 'right'. I know a fair number of people who would consider themselves on the left who take the Pritti Patel view on immigration, and I reckon there will be a fair few on the right who are sympathetic to us admitting refugees fleeing for their lives.

I think it's more nuanced even than that. It shouldn't be about some people being sympathetic to refugees and other people taking the 'Priti Patel' view: Rather, both viewpoints are to a large extent true. It's true that many (most?) migrants making dangerous channel crossings are refugees fleeing persecution who deserve our sympathy and help. And it's also true that we do need some means to ensure the numbers coming are at manageable levels, and it's true that some people coming are not genuine asylum seekers, etc. To my mind, this polarisation where people divide into a camp believing either one thing or the other is not helpful, and is preventing a genuine debate about what the best solutions would be.

 

[Typhoon]

There will never be cuts to immigration for as long as boosting GDP is widely desirable, because one needs an increasing supply of people to work and consume to boost GDP. As birth rates are low, immigration is making up the shortfall. For as long as this remains the case, politicians will only pay lip service to the issue. I imagine Farage is either naïve to this reality, or he is aware but as you say wants popularity and/or to aid the world of throwing dead cats to distract from domestic failings.

Unfortunately, reducing 'immigration' plays well with parts of the electorate. People think they are being done out of high paying jobs by these 'immigrants' when it is because they don't have the skills or ability to do them themselves, which is, to some extent, the failure of the education system, the direction of which is improving but is not helped by having an inept and lethargic Secretary of State. (Media Studies, '...ology's, are still high up in the numbers studying them; compare with Computing, Modern Foreign Languages, even Physics is not that great). I keep hearing ministers going on about replacing low paying, insecure jobs with high paying jobs in, say, green industries or pharma (so people can afford the 'luxury' rabbit hutches houses that are going up everywhere), without saying that companies will only pay high salaries for jobs which are highly skilled!

We were also been deprived of one of our sources of itinerant labour on 1st January, I don't know what delivery companies would do without those that stayed, I reckon those that leave parcels for me are 50% 'settled status', and they are the ones that smile and offer a response to my words of thanks.

I have used 'immigrants' inside the quotes as part of the time, not only are they not immigrants but their parents weren't either!

 

[Elwyn]

Some of the asylum seekers turning up in the UK now (both across the Channel and by other unlawful methods) have already claimed asylum and in some cases been granted full asylum status in various EU countries. So those are mostly just moving to the UK for economic reasons or to be re-united with friends or family. However because of Brexit, the UK has lost the capacity to remove them automatically under the Dublin Convention, back to the EU country they claimed in. There are some re-admission agreements in place, with Romania for example, but for a lot of EU countries the UK can’t remove them at present. The applicants know that and I have heard anecdotes of Borderforce staff being taunted about it by when their claims are being processed.

The term asylum seeker can be emotive, and some just presume that all applicants are genuine. My experience is they are not. No-one is forcing them into small boats. If they had a genuine claim for asylum in the UK, they can approach the nearest British Embassy, in Paris for example, and lodge an application. Funny how few do that. I wonder why?

Giving priority to someone who seeks to enter the UK illegally over those who wait patiently in the queue for visas etc seems inherently unfair.

 

[superjohn]

The problem for the government is giving the impression they want to stop immigration in order to appease a significant proportion of their voter base while actually allowing or perhaps encouraging it for the economic benefits.

Legal migrants are required to maintain the workforce in the face of a declining birth rate and Brexit related departures. Meanwhile the illegals vanish into the underground economy that allows the government to maintain a minimum wage that is unsustainable in certain sectors. It isn’t a pleasant thought but the existence of an invisible underclass that the government doesn’t need to acknowledge or provide for is a very attractive proposition for right leaning politicians (which is all we really have these days).

Priti Patel is the master of saying one thing and doing another. The bigger the fine she announces to less likely it is ever to be issued! She knows exactly what she is doing.

 

[DarloRich]

It would benefit everyone massively to stop using migration as a political football. The Right like to use channel crossings as cover for harder and more stringent border controls. The Left like to use the issue to suggest borders have no meaning.

In the middle are people, who, genuine asylum cases or not, are nonetheless uniquely vulnerable.

The border crossings ought to be stopped. The easiest way to do this is by working with the French to place facilities within France for us to safely detain and accommodate asylum seekers and have their cases heard under the law. About half of asylum cases are successful.

Honesty and accuracy in debate around this subject would also help and may also educate. A focus on practical solutions would also be great!

I don't understand the vitriol towards Farage. What is so bad about wanting borders enforced and legal entry being the only option? The current situation only encourages more and more to make the same dangerous voyage whilst people traffickers get rich. It also means there is no vetting process to make sure we are letting in those who are most at need and don't pose a danger.

The RNLI should be there to assist those who come to grief by way of a genuine accident. Not to routinely assist people traffickers.

I feel as though the outraged are only so because "Farage bad" and they are simply the compassionate/good ones. I see little compassion in encouraging the illegal route.

Oh dear. Propaganda works. Perhaps you could explain how the RNLI will determine a "genuine accident".

I will also ask: what do think you happens when the evil RNLI rescue people and they get to the UK?

Farage is a wrong un. I know he tells you things you want to hear, offers you simple sounding solutions to complex problems and gives you a convenient bogeyman to blame for the problems we face in this country but that only works if people swallow his nonsense unthinkingly.

It is clear that many still do.

Some of the asylum seekers turning up in the UK now (both across the Channel and by other unlawful methods) have already claimed asylum and in some cases been granted full asylum status in various EU countries. So those are mostly just moving to the UK for economic reasons or to be re-united with friends or family. However because of Brexit, the UK has lost the capacity to remove them automatically under the Dublin Convention, back to the EU country they claimed in. There are some re-admission agreements in place, with Romania for example, but for a lot of EU countries the UK can’t remove them at present. The applicants know that and I have heard anecdotes of Borderforce staff being taunted about it by when their claims are being processed.

The term asylum seeker can be emotive, and some just presume that all applicants are genuine. My experience is they are not. No-one is forcing them into small boats. If they had a genuine claim for asylum in the UK, they can approach the nearest British Embassy, in Paris for example, and lodge an application. Funny how few do that. I wonder why?

Giving priority to someone who seeks to enter the UK illegally over those who wait patiently in the queue for visas etc seems inherently unfair.

There are some interesting points here. Could you provide some published sources to support them?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I don't understand the vitriol towards Farage.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm very suspicious of anyone who comes from a fairly privileged background but tries to promote themselves as a "man of the people*", especially if that mostly involves punching down at people with different pigmentation. The man is an utter fraud, to the extent that I'm not even convinced that he genuinely holds all of the views he espouses. He moans about how immigrants cripple the NHS, which ignores (a) the role immigrants play in staffing our hospitals, and (b) his belief in switching to a US-style insurance based system. He's so disingenuous that he makes my teeth itch.

*- see also: Call Me Dave; and Emperor Boris. And in the interest of balance, Tony Blair.

 

[Geezertronic]

You should assume that anyone who boards a boat in France with a view to entering England is an illegal immigrant as they are attempting to enter England illegally rather than via the normal channels (no pun intended). This method of entry should be actively discouraged by the UK Government, not just for the sake of the people who risk their lives on these boats, but also if there is an element of criminal enterprise around it then it has to be stamped out. The suggestion is that these criminals will send several small (and often inadequate) boats containing "economy class" migrants across to swamp RNLI/Coastguards, then send the larger boats containing "1st Class migrants" over. That is just pure victimisation of desperate people by these criminal gangs and it seems that, no matter how much money we give the French, they don't do a lot about it as they just don't care.

 

[DarloRich]

This method of entry should be actively discouraged by the UK Government, not just for the sake of the people who risk their lives on these boats, but also if there is an element of criminal enterprise around it then it has to be stamped out

So why aren't they?

 

[Geezertronic]

So why aren't they?

I think it's quite right for people to ask why the UK Government appears to be doing nothing, just some people ask with a tone that normal people would consider wholly inappropriate then that tends to tarnish the normal people who have genuine questions & genuine concerns

 

[birchesgreen]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm very suspicious of anyone who comes from a fairly privileged background but tries to promote themselves as a "man of the people*", especially if that mostly involves punching down at people with different pigmentation. The man is an utter fraud, to the extent that I'm not even convinced that he genuinely holds all of the views he espouses. He moans about how immigrants cripple the NHS, which ignores (a) the role immigrants play in staffing our hospitals, and (b) his belief in switching to a US-style insurance based system. He's so disingenuous that he makes my teeth itch.

*- see also: Call Me Dave; and Emperor Boris. And in the interest of balance, Tony Blair.

A man who also secured german citizenship for his children just after Brexit, allegedly also for himself.

A man who claims he passionately cares about British fishermen but only attends one meeting of the committee which directly affects their lives.

Yeah why would anyone hate him?

 

[MotCO]

Immigration is usually considered from the perspective of the receiving country, and not from the country they are leaving. I would expect that most immigrants are the people who have most motivation to improve their lot (except for any terrorists or other n'er gooders); they are probably leaving a country that is being poorly managed (either by rogue or corrupt dictators).

What I don't understand is why, if the brightest brains are leaving their home countries, they are not staying to try to improve their own countries, or they are being encouraged to improve from within. If there is a need for foreign aid, then surely this is what is should be used for. Taken to the extreme, it will mean that most of the brightest, most motivated people will end up in the West, making the richer countries even richer and the poorer countries even poorer. Surely it would be better if the wealth was more evenly distributed. Thus there would be less incentive or need for the massive migration we are seeing.

This model can be see in the 'freedom of movement' policy of the EU. Many of the brightest brains or more motivated in the eastern countries are moving west; the eastern countries will need more financial support from the EU to support the people left behind. The eastern countries will be poorer and the western countries will be richer.

 

[tbtc]

Immigration is usually considered from the perspective of the receiving country, and not from the country they are leaving. I would expect that most immigrants are the people who have most motivation to improve their lot (except for any terrorists or other n'er gooders); they are probably leaving a country that is being poorly managed (either by rogue or corrupt dictators).

What I don't understand is why, if the brightest brains are leaving their home countries, they are not staying to try to improve their own countries, or they are being encouraged to improve from within. If there is a need for foreign aid, then surely this is what is should be used for. Taken to the extreme, it will mean that most of the brightest, most motivated people will end up in the West, making the richer countries even richer and the poorer countries even poorer. Surely it would be better if the wealth was more evenly distributed. Thus there would be less incentive or need for the massive migration we are seeing.

This model can be see in the 'freedom of movement' policy of the EU. Many of the brightest brains or more motivated in the eastern countries are moving west; the eastern countries will need more financial support from the EU to support the people left behind. The eastern countries will be poorer and the western countries will be richer.

Taking your comments at face value, should we stop the "freedom of movement" inside the UK that currently sees the talented teenagers of Swansea/ Stoke/ Belfast etc leave for University elsewhere and then on to the bight lights of London, creating a "brain drain" (with some of the traffic in the opposite direction being families on benefits who councils "relocate" to places like the Potteries because they can't afford to pay for them to keep renting houses in London)?

Freedom of movement inside the UK means that some places are in a vicious circle (ambitious young people able to move away do move away because there's not enough to keep them, which means their younger siblings do likewise), rural places become retirement towns.

Or are people fine with freedom of movement inside the UK but have very different attitudes to it elsewhere?

 

[MotCO]

Taking your comments at face value, should we stop the "freedom of movement" inside the UK that currently sees the talented teenagers of Swansea/ Stoke/ Belfast etc leave for University elsewhere and then on to the bight lights of London, creating a "brain drain" (with some of the traffic in the opposite direction being families on benefits who councils "relocate" to places like the Potteries because they can't afford to pay for them to keep renting houses in London)?

Freedom of movement inside the UK means that some places are in a vicious circle (ambitious young people able to move away do move away because there's not enough to keep them, which means their younger siblings do likewise), rural places become retirement towns.

Or are people fine with freedom of movement inside the UK but have very different attitudes to it elsewhere?

But people moving around within a country does not have the same brain drain and economic consequences on a country as international migration does. I am all in favour of countries all leveling up, not becoming more extremely different. Movement within a country is not the same thing at all.