Immigrants crossing the channel.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Since the start of the 20thC the way that the UK and indeed the USA has 'seen' refugees has (arguably) gotten worse.......with a much more negative attitude in the 21stC

In the closing years of the 19thC following the Pogroms of Tsar Nicholas II, if it was not for countries like Britain taking in large numbers of Jewish refugees.......would we today be talking about a genocide of the late 19thC ???

Later, there was the Kinder Transport......

What if at/in those times there was someone akin to Farage making a similar case about Britain's attitude to refugees?

Across the pond, Ellis Island....the Statue of Liberty has this inscription
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! "
Trump's government apparently see that as nothing more than history.

Lastly, in regard to the way migrants are treated by those that have paid them to be taken to ~ in this case the USA.

PS I long wondered how it was that in South Wales and Scotland there are significant Italian communities.

I heard of two different explanations both were in relation to those who were headed to the USA
1) South Wales ~ the ship carrying them was delayed(due to damage?) and the migrants were disembarked to wait for the journey to continue. It took a while and once ready to continue many were already settled & accepted in those communities.

2) The Scotland one is different ~ non of the migrants spoke English and the journey was beset by bad weather.......taking its time it arrived in a Scottish port. The ships captain told them they had arrived in the US and made(?) them leave the ship

NB in neither case do I recall timeframe!

In summary ~ it is sad & tragic that in our lifetimes that as a nation we have continued to tested by global events that trigger mass migrations. Part of that challenge is when some of the political elite see this as nothing more than an opportunity to raise their own profile and agitate for their agenda to predominate.
 
the black fox said:
.

Nigel farage the best prime minister we never had
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if the guy in the dolphin suit agrees or those that voted for said cetacean. Thankfully the racist piece of crap never did manage to become an MP, despite his persistence ,what was it 7 times trying and 7 times failing? , the electorate saw through his thin disguise.
 
AZ6 said:
Are we? So; you're familiar with the vagaries and intricacies of the Dutch and Scandinavian immigration, refugee and asylum support systems then?
Click to expand...
Wtf has that got to do with our support systems.
 
If we're so bad why don't they settle in France?
 
Why is it that those asking the questions, never seem to aknowledge the answers?
 
Cockney said:
If we're so bad why don't they settle in France?
Click to expand...

ID cards are mandatory in France, I guess getting one will involve some kind of unfavourable disclosure.
The French welfare system is contributory, Britain’s benefits are less conditional.
Also, successful asylum seekers qualify for the same benefits as UK nationals, and don't have to contribute first.
While cases are processed, which could take years, applicants get housing and free money.
Add in the likelihood that failed asylum seekers won’t be deported, and you have plenty of reason to want to be here rather than a migrant camp in France.

Can't blame them for that, its not a good look for the French but they're just acting in their own interest, all's fair in love and war and all that

so we're back to the soft touch thing, as if it was ever debatable in the first place.
 
Uncle Fester said:
But it has been shown time and again, that those who fail to cross the channel, will try again and again. Eventually they will succeed.

What is the percentage of those who get here versus those who do not? We simply do not know how good or bad a job the French are doing, so there shouldn't be any rush to judgement.

There is another matter, if you put aside the humanitarian aspect of things for a moment. I distinctly remember during the Brexit campaign that if we left the E.U. we would become a 'independent sovereign nation' and that we would 'take back control of our borders, money and laws'. Those who advocated Brexit now run the country, so why should we sub contract control of our borders to another nation? It is the responsibility of those who govern us to control our borders and no one else.

In purely practical terms, why should the French spend money, time and resources to stop people from coming here? If the French can shadow the migrant boats, to ensure they don't come to harm, having the migrants arrive in the UK is a desireable outcome for the French.

There is only one real solution to the issue of mass migration and that is to make the home nations of refugees a desireable place to live and remove the incentive to leave. But the so called developed nations refuse to act against murderous dictators who butcher their populations, or corrupt leaders who plunge their citizens into abject poverty. We shouldn't be in the least surprised that a few of those people who flee, find themselves in our country by whatever means they can to get here.
Click to expand...

The French should spend time, money and resources on this because it would be the right thing to do. Doesn't the UK contribute financially to this? I think we used to but that's beside the point. IMO everything within reason should be done to prevent people setting off across the sea as that is quite obviously a dangerous thing to do.

The French may indeed be quite happy too see immigrants leave French territory or waters. I don't know. I may be wrong but going on past reports of refugee/immigrant camps which people seemed to be shepherded to as staging off points the suspicion is there that this happens with the French authorities turning a blind eye or even at worst colluding.

Perhaps the arrival of a UK coast guard ship in this instance was coincidence and without collusion of any kind. Even if everyone involved is of pure motive we're still left with the fact that an overloaded small boat was apparently at least partially escorted through French waters and into UK waters and that clearly risked lives. Lets hope to god they're not colluding in it if only by turning a blind eye.

Yes, the desperate people will probably try again but that's all the more reason to police this better in France/wherever. This isn't sub contracting control of our borders it's common sense and in the interest of preserving lives. I don't see a Brexit issue here. The aim should be to detain people if necessary for their own safety in France (or wherever) before they set off in over crowded boats until they can be processed for entry into the UK or passed to some other country that'll take them.

PS.
Just a little story. Nothing to do with this as far as I know but something to think about. Mrs WW went to a function last year, I didn't go, I just dropped her off then went off with my camera and picked her up again later. Anyway, she met an Egyptian guy who had to flee and he's now in the UK. He can't go back as he'd be killed as his name identifies him of being the of the wrong group. Imagine that. Imagine being killed because of your name. My heart aches for the people who are so desperate they'll go though the process of fleeing to another country and I know we can't take them all but surely we can do better to try and ensure they're not chugging across one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world in an overloaded dinghy.
 
Last edited:
joxby said:
ID cards are mandatory in France, I guess getting one will involve some kind of unfavourable disclosure.
The French welfare system is contributory, Britain’s benefits are less conditional.
Also, successful asylum seekers qualify for the same benefits as UK nationals, and don't have to contribute first.
While cases are processed, which could take years, applicants get housing and free money.
Add in the likelihood that failed asylum seekers won’t be deported, and you have plenty of reason to want to be here rather than a migrant camp in France.

Can't blame them for that, its not a good look for the French but they're just acting in their own interest, all's fair in love and war and all that

so we're back to the soft touch thing, as if it was ever debatable in the first place.
Click to expand...

I know a lady who used to be involved in deportations and she told me she knows that some were met off the plane and taken away and killed. I didn't ask how she knew but I think she was in a position to know.
 
woof woof said:
.....surely we can do better to try and ensure they're not chugging across one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world in an overloaded dinghy.
Click to expand...

I suspect that a chug over the channel may actually be the safest section of their entire journey tbh
 
Last edited:
Box Brownie said:
Since the start of the 20thC the way that the UK and indeed the USA has 'seen' refugees has (arguably) gotten worse.......with a much more negative attitude in the 21stC

In the closing years of the 19thC following the Pogroms of Tsar Nicholas II, if it was not for countries like Britain taking in large numbers of Jewish refugees.......would we today be talking about a genocide of the late 19thC ???

Later, there was the Kinder Transport......

What if at/in those times there was someone akin to Farage making a similar case about Britain's attitude to refugees?

Across the pond, Ellis Island....the Statue of Liberty has this inscription
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! "
Trump's government apparently see that as nothing more than history.

Lastly, in regard to the way migrants are treated by those that have paid them to be taken to ~ in this case the USA.

PS I long wondered how it was that in South Wales and Scotland there are significant Italian communities.

I heard of two different explanations both were in relation to those who were headed to the USA
1) South Wales ~ the ship carrying them was delayed(due to damage?) and the migrants were disembarked to wait for the journey to continue. It took a while and once ready to continue many were already settled & accepted in those communities.

2) The Scotland one is different ~ non of the migrants spoke English and the journey was beset by bad weather.......taking its time it arrived in a Scottish port. The ships captain told them they had arrived in the US and made(?) them leave the ship

NB in neither case do I recall timeframe!

In summary ~ it is sad & tragic that in our lifetimes that as a nation we have continued to tested by global events that trigger mass migrations. Part of that challenge is when some of the political elite see this as nothing more than an opportunity to raise their own profile and agitate for their agenda to predominate.
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying but hasn't Farage said that he agrees with immigration as long as it's controlled and in the interest of the UK? I'm pretty sure he said something like that. I'm also sure that pre Trump there was a president who was regarded by many as a darling of the liberals but was known by others as the deporter in chief. I'll give you a clue, he got a peace prize.

I know there isn't the room or the time to list all those who could have done better, my point is just that it's not as simple as blaming the likes of Farage and Trump.
 
joxby said:
I suspect that a chug over the channel may actually be the safest section of their entire journey tbh
Click to expand...

You may be right but it may be one of the steps we can most safely intercept. Although detaining people who haven't got tickets or documentation on French trains instead of allowing them to travel on to the coast would be reasonably safe too.
 
Last edited:
joxby said:
Also, successful asylum seekers qualify for the same benefits as UK nationals, and don't have to contribute first.
While cases are processed, which could take years, applicants get housing and free money.
Add in the likelihood that failed asylum seekers won’t be deported, and you have plenty of reason to want to be here rather than a migrant camp in France.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile people will mean that people in this country are having to use food banks and kids of today are unlikely to see a state pension.
 
If only there was some sort of organisation we could influence as a member to ensure fair, safe and reasonable treatment of refugees. Maybe that nice Mr Farage could do a great job representing our interests.
 
woof woof said:
You may be right but it may be one of the steps we can most safely intercept. Although detaining people who haven't got tickets or documentation on French trains instead of allowing them to travel on to the coast would be reasonably safe too.
Click to expand...


I think you're going to have to wind it back to ground zero, otherwise you're just treating a symptom.
 
joxby said:
I think you're going to have to wind it back to ground zero, otherwise you're just treating a symptom.
Click to expand...

But going to ground zero may be politically unacceptable... boots on the ground, mission creep, interfering in internal affairs, imperialism etc. I do know there's no quick fix here and all we'd be doing is saving a few and possibly encouraging more.
 
boyfalldown said:
If only there was some sort of organisation we could influence as a member to ensure fair, safe and reasonable treatment of refugees. Maybe that nice Mr Farage could do a great job representing our interests.
Click to expand...

Until there's one effective EC government with intention to take effective measures the EC wont be the answer. People will still (allegedly) be bussed/trained through Italy and France to the channel ports whilst the national governments or local authorities either look the other way or actively encourage it.
 
joxby said:
ID cards are mandatory in France, I guess getting one will involve some kind of unfavourable disclosure.
The French welfare system is contributory, Britain’s benefits are less conditional.
Also, successful asylum seekers qualify for the same benefits as UK nationals, and don't have to contribute first.
While cases are processed, which could take years, applicants get housing and free money.
Add in the likelihood that failed asylum seekers won’t be deported, and you have plenty of reason to want to be here rather than a migrant camp in France.

Can't blame them for that, its not a good look for the French but they're just acting in their own interest, all's fair in love and war and all that

so we're back to the soft touch thing, as if it was ever debatable in the first place.
Click to expand...
Figures for asylum applications in France and Germany dwarf our figures. Even Spain, Greece and Italy have more applications than we do. If we’re a soft touch what does that make them.

https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-in-the-uk.html
 
This isn't channel crossing related but I think it's vaguely applicable to this thread. It's about a proposed Hong Kong security law...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-52759578

At the time of the handback I was in favour of bringing anyone who wanted to come to the UK and if 5m wanted to come then so be it. I'm sure they'd be industrious and improve the UK. What future do those who'd like more freedom face under Chinese rule? I'd still go for bringing them here now.

I have a Chinese brother in law who now lives in Singapore and he's very vocal and passionate about the state of things in HK. He says people there are stupid to expect freedom. I think that's a strange attitude to take but it's different views from different cultures.
 
jakeblu said:
Figures for asylum applications in France and Germany dwarf our figures.
Click to expand...
International law is very clear that a refugee must seek asylum in the first safe country they come to. I can't actually see how Britain can fit that description unless a refugee arrives on a ship or aircraft that has not touched land en route to the UK.

I think that we should provide a secondary haven for those fleeing danger but when 4 million of our own children are living in poverty it is hard to justify charity to people from elsewhere.

Economic migrants are a very different matter and they should be returned to their home country if they haven't gone through our procedures for granting access. It does a great deal of harm to the relations between legal migrants and the host population to permit illegal migrants to remain on tenuous excuses.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
International law is very clear that a refugee must seek asylum in the first safe country they come to. I can't actually see how Britain can fit that description unless a refugee arrives on a ship or aircraft that has not touched land en route to the UK.

I think that we should provide a secondary haven for those fleeing danger but when 4 million of our own children are living in poverty it is hard to justify charity to people from elsewhere.

Economic migrants are a very different matter and they should be returned to their home country if they haven't gone through our procedures for granting access. It does a great deal of harm to the relations between legal migrants and the host population to permit illegal migrants to remain on tenuous excuses.
Click to expand...

I know that's the law but the likes of Greece just couldn't manage without international help. It's something that surely has to be addressed by groups of nations working together not individual nations with the rest hoping the matter just somehow goes away.
 
woof woof said:
Until there's one effective EC government with intention to take effective measures the EC wont be the answer. People will still (allegedly) be bussed/trained through Italy and France to the channel ports whilst the national governments or local authorities either look the other way or actively encourage it.
Click to expand...

With no international cooperation, and our favourite irrelevance shouting then nothing will happen. The French take more refugees then us, with as much bad feeling as here. What motivation is there to help at the mo
 
boyfalldown said:
With no international cooperation, and our favourite irrelevance shouting then nothing will happen. The French take more refugees then us, with as much bad feeling as here. What motivation is there to help at the mo
Click to expand...

Helping being the right thing to do should be enough.
 
jakeblu said:
But it rather belies your claim that asylum seekers are coming here because we're a soft touch. Besides we rank pretty low in the numbers of asylum we grant far below Germany, France Italy and Spain

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/stati...s_of_destination:_Germany.2C_France_and_Spain
Click to expand...
Not all failed applications get deported. Plus there are those that just disappear and don't have their applications processed. That doesn't even include those that aren't even picked up in the first place.
 
boyfalldown said:
It doesn't seem to be for Nigel et al.
Click to expand...

Are we back to obfuscating the issue by having a pop an NF?

As I said above, I don't care who raised the issue, it could have been Hitler for all I care. NF is one man and linked to views and political parties that are avoided by looking the other way or voting for someone else but even he can be right for the wrong reasons and on this subject, immigrants crossing the channel, I agree there should be questions asked and action taken - to prevent loss of lives. We can sort out status later.
 
I hate Farage and all he stands for with a passion but do understand what the OP is getting at that at the moment all we are doing is putting the refugees lives at risk and helping criminal gangs
Surely there is a better way of managing this
 
joxby said:
Also, successful asylum seekers qualify for the same benefits as UK nationals, and don't have to contribute first.
Click to expand...

Ok so let's bust some myths.

UK nationals don't have to contribute before receiving any basic benefits. You are entitled to an amount the government decides is sufficient to live on. Which, currently, is very complicated to work out because of the nice, simple, easy to use system the government has but in place for benefit claimants. From a quick search, it appears to be something like £57.90 a week for a single person under 25, rising upwards with age, marital status, kids etc.

A person claiming asylum can get £37.75 a week.

In order to qualify this, you have to first have your asylum application accepted. If you're literally straight off a boat, God alone knows how long this might take. Weeks, months, before you even get to see someone who can advise you (these tend to be charities and other organisations, there is no government agency for this). Then, you may be offered accommodation. Ever seen the kind of accommodation offered to asylum seekers? I have. You wouldn't let a dog live in most of those places. Shocking. Then, the asylum application, if accepted, may then take months, years, to be processed. Asylum seekers are unable to work or claim any other benefits. Then, even if you get to the point where you have an application being processed, you can still wait years until there is an outcome. Years, on £37.75 a week in s***ty accommodation. To put that into some kind of perspective; MPs, who get paid pretty well, and are generally not poor people, can claim £25 a night for food expenses if they are away on 'parliamentary business'. Lords get paid £300 a day, plus travel and a subsidised canteen, to fall asleep in the HoL...

To anyone thinking the UK is a 'soft touch', why not try it for yourselves? Hop in a rubber dinghy, sail across the Channel, then pretend you're not a UK national. See how much fun you have. And don't forget to report back to us with your findings.

If the likes of Führage were genuinely concerned about the treatment of Human Beings, they'd be raging against the immigration and asylum system. Cos it's inhumane.
 
Last edited:
Can't we just drop Nigel Farage from this discussion? He seems more divisive than the issue and bringing him up time after time just seems pointless to me.
 
woof woof said:
Can't we just drop Nigel Farage from this discussion? He seems more divisive than the issue and bringing him up time after time just seems pointless to me.
Click to expand...

You were the person who brought him up! "Some will hate Nigel Farage on sight" literally your second line in your OP!!

He seems more divisive
Click to expand...

That's his entire shtick. Divide and rule. Get the plebs fighting over the scraps, hating anyone else who might come along wanting a slice, and being ever more grateful and subservient to the ruling elites.

Oh look; it's working...
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Are we back to obfuscating the issue by having a pop an NF?

As I said above, I don't care who raised the issue, it could have been Hitler for all I care. NF is one man and linked to views and political parties that are avoided by looking the other way or voting for someone else but even he can be right for the wrong reasons and on this subject, immigrants crossing the channel, I agree there should be questions asked and action taken - to prevent loss of lives. We can sort out status later.
Click to expand...


Not at all. I was observing in that his motivation, like many others, does not seem to be to help anyone bar himself.
 
nilagin said:
Not all failed applications get deported. Plus there are those that just disappear and don't have their applications processed. That doesn't even include those that aren't even picked up in the first place.
Click to expand...
You think that doesn't happen elsewhere?
 
AZ6 said:
You were the person who brought him up! "Some will hate Nigel Farage on sight" literally your second line in your OP!!



That's his entire shtick. Divide and rule. Get the plebs fighting over the scraps, hating anyone else who might come along wanting a slice, and being ever more grateful and subservient to the ruling elites.

Oh look; it's working...
Click to expand...

Because I knew what would happen and that's why I posted what I posted. I am heartily sick of the NF discussion. It's a distraction.

I wish I'd found the other vid instead, each would serve to highlight the issue but sadly the NF one was the one I saw and people, like you, just can't leave him out of it.

I'll say it again. I don't care who raised the issue, it needs looking at to lessen the chance of people drowning at sea.
 
boyfalldown said:
Not at all. I was observing in that his motivation, like many others, does not seem to be to help anyone bar himself.
Click to expand...

Then ignore him. Next to the larger issue of immigrants crossing by sea in overcrowded boats I see him as an relevance and a distraction. Maybe create a thread about him and his motives?
 
woof woof said:
Because I knew what would happen and that's why I posted what I posted. I am heartily sick of the NF discussion. It's a distraction.

I wish I'd found the other vid instead, each would serve to highlight the issue but sadly the NF one was the one I saw and people, like you, just can't leave him out of it.

I'll say it again. I don't care who raised the issue, it needs looking at to lessen the chance of people drowning at sea.
Click to expand...
But, he's not bringing this to anyone attention, its been in the news for months, in fact didn't the Home Secretary at the time, Sajid Javid have to return early from holiday in December 2019 because of just this problem. The only thing he's really doing here is bringing attention to himself as he becomes more and more irrelevant.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...day-short-to-tackle-channel-migrant-crossings
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top