FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > One in, one out.
One in, one out.
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
"The obvious flaw is that hoards of 'ghost' crossers will do the trip so that others will be legitimised. Then they wait their turn. A recipe for disaster." Couldn't they identify these 'ghost' crossers, making it a condition that for anyone trying to cross illegally then they wouldn't be allowed to claim asylum at a later date. Mrs x | |||
"How can they be returned so easily? Surely they will need to be processed and a case for asylum heard, appealed and appealed until exhausted? Secondly, why would France agree to this? The idea is simply take back a criminal and we take a compliant individual. I would need to understand a lot more detail for this to make sense to me." they didn't need to all that with the rwanda scheme! Ignoring the emotive criminal bit (as by the same definition they are probably illegally in France so already a criminal), I can see that if people agree only going into France as a stepping stone to UK and UK is no longer availaible they stop going into France. | |||
"The obvious flaw is that hoards of 'ghost' crossers will do the trip so that others will be legitimised. Then they wait their turn. A recipe for disaster." Supposed to be costly, so cannot see that happening | |||
"How can they be returned so easily? Surely they will need to be processed and a case for asylum heard, appealed and appealed until exhausted? Secondly, why would France agree to this? The idea is simply take back a criminal and we take a compliant individual. I would need to understand a lot more detail for this to make sense to me.they didn't need to all that with the rwanda scheme! Ignoring the emotive criminal bit (as by the same definition they are probably illegally in France so already a criminal), I can see that if people agree only going into France as a stepping stone to UK and UK is no longer availaible they stop going into France. " That is my point, the UK is still available, they will still need to be processed for the right to stay as an asylum seeker. Nothing has changed. | |||
"How can they be returned so easily? Surely they will need to be processed and a case for asylum heard, appealed and appealed until exhausted? Secondly, why would France agree to this? The idea is simply take back a criminal and we take a compliant individual. I would need to understand a lot more detail for this to make sense to me.they didn't need to all that with the rwanda scheme! Ignoring the emotive criminal bit (as by the same definition they are probably illegally in France so already a criminal), I can see that if people agree only going into France as a stepping stone to UK and UK is no longer availaible they stop going into France. That is my point, the UK is still available, they will still need to be processed for the right to stay as an asylum seeker. Nothing has changed." available to whom ? While it may look like I've agreed with your point I'm not sure what your point is ! | |||
"How can they be returned so easily? Surely they will need to be processed and a case for asylum heard, appealed and appealed until exhausted? Secondly, why would France agree to this? The idea is simply take back a criminal and we take a compliant individual. I would need to understand a lot more detail for this to make sense to me.they didn't need to all that with the rwanda scheme! Ignoring the emotive criminal bit (as by the same definition they are probably illegally in France so already a criminal), I can see that if people agree only going into France as a stepping stone to UK and UK is no longer availaible they stop going into France. That is my point, the UK is still available, they will still need to be processed for the right to stay as an asylum seeker. Nothing has changed.available to whom ? While it may look like I've agreed with your point I'm not sure what your point is ! " The conventions we have signed up to have not changed under this approach, which means crossing the channel is still an option. | |||
"The obvious flaw is that hoards of 'ghost' crossers will do the trip so that others will be legitimised. Then they wait their turn. A recipe for disaster. Supposed to be costly, so cannot see that happening" Maybe not exactly, but for sure the system will get abused, and the numbers will increase or at the very least stay. at the same level. But having cloaked channel crossings in a cloak of legitimacy, the government will claim they've stopped illegal crossings. Yet in reality, hardly anything will have changed. | |||
"How can they be returned so easily? Surely they will need to be processed and a case for asylum heard, appealed and appealed until exhausted? Secondly, why would France agree to this? The idea is simply take back a criminal and we take a compliant individual. I would need to understand a lot more detail for this to make sense to me.they didn't need to all that with the rwanda scheme! Ignoring the emotive criminal bit (as by the same definition they are probably illegally in France so already a criminal), I can see that if people agree only going into France as a stepping stone to UK and UK is no longer availaible they stop going into France. That is my point, the UK is still available, they will still need to be processed for the right to stay as an asylum seeker. Nothing has changed.available to whom ? While it may look like I've agreed with your point I'm not sure what your point is ! The conventions we have signed up to have not changed under this approach, which means crossing the channel is still an option. " it's an option. But would you pay £10k or whatever it is if you knew you'd be swapped for someone else. And at best you are then sitting waiting for someone else to cross... But also waiting with loads of other people who haven't paid. Wouldn't you be tempted to not pay and not cross instead. There's a cool prisoner dilemma that's at play. | |||
"Apparently, SKS is talking to the EU about a deal that sees us returning boat arrivals in return for taking in an asylum seeker who hasn't crossed. The idea is to break the gangs as they have no customers. And probably therefore means we will have reduced numbers to need to swap. On the face of it, I can see this working better than Rwanda. " All ideas should be welcomed and explored. This may just end up in the lawyers hands again fighting to keep those that crossed in the UK. We are told that a person has a right to claim asylum where they choose so if they make it to the UK and say this is where they want asylum then how do you deport them and keep in the law. Not saying its not possible but some of the reasons given for past schemes not working have not gone away. Also on the bbc report today, members of the EU have reacted to SKS plans for a reset, mostly positively but also say any change will require concessions from the UK on other areas like freedom of movement | |||
| |||
| |||
"How can they be returned so easily? Surely they will need to be processed and a case for asylum heard, appealed and appealed until exhausted? Secondly, why would France agree to this? The idea is simply take back a criminal and we take a compliant individual. I would need to understand a lot more detail for this to make sense to me.they didn't need to all that with the rwanda scheme! Ignoring the emotive criminal bit (as by the same definition they are probably illegally in France so already a criminal), I can see that if people agree only going into France as a stepping stone to UK and UK is no longer availaible they stop going into France. That is my point, the UK is still available, they will still need to be processed for the right to stay as an asylum seeker. Nothing has changed.available to whom ? While it may look like I've agreed with your point I'm not sure what your point is ! The conventions we have signed up to have not changed under this approach, which means crossing the channel is still an option. it's an option. But would you pay £10k or whatever it is if you knew you'd be swapped for someone else. And at best you are then sitting waiting for someone else to cross... But also waiting with loads of other people who haven't paid. Wouldn't you be tempted to not pay and not cross instead. There's a cool prisoner dilemma that's at play. " This is not how it is going to work, just because you don't come in a small boat means you get auto entry, they will still need vetting. That means 90%+ wont make the 1for1 exchange, so get in the boat pay your money and you are in. If the idea is to take without vetting, this needs stopping now. | |||
"Apparently, SKS is talking to the EU about a deal that sees us returning boat arrivals in return for taking in an asylum seeker who hasn't crossed. The idea is to break the gangs as they have no customers. And probably therefore means we will have reduced numbers to need to swap. On the face of it, I can see this working better than Rwanda. All ideas should be welcomed and explored. This may just end up in the lawyers hands again fighting to keep those that crossed in the UK. We are told that a person has a right to claim asylum where they choose so if they make it to the UK and say this is where they want asylum then how do you deport them and keep in the law. Not saying its not possible but some of the reasons given for past schemes not working have not gone away. Also on the bbc report today, members of the EU have reacted to SKS plans for a reset, mostly positively but also say any change will require concessions from the UK on other areas like freedom of movement" interesting where reform lines would be if we can stop the boat people bit at the expense of softening Brexit ! | |||
"How can they be returned so easily? Surely they will need to be processed and a case for asylum heard, appealed and appealed until exhausted? Secondly, why would France agree to this? The idea is simply take back a criminal and we take a compliant individual. I would need to understand a lot more detail for this to make sense to me.they didn't need to all that with the rwanda scheme! Ignoring the emotive criminal bit (as by the same definition they are probably illegally in France so already a criminal), I can see that if people agree only going into France as a stepping stone to UK and UK is no longer availaible they stop going into France. That is my point, the UK is still available, they will still need to be processed for the right to stay as an asylum seeker. Nothing has changed.available to whom ? While it may look like I've agreed with your point I'm not sure what your point is ! The conventions we have signed up to have not changed under this approach, which means crossing the channel is still an option. it's an option. But would you pay £10k or whatever it is if you knew you'd be swapped for someone else. And at best you are then sitting waiting for someone else to cross... But also waiting with loads of other people who haven't paid. Wouldn't you be tempted to not pay and not cross instead. There's a cool prisoner dilemma that's at play. This is not how it is going to work, just because you don't come in a small boat means you get auto entry, they will still need vetting. That means 90%+ wont make the 1for1 exchange, so get in the boat pay your money and you are in. If the idea is to take without vetting, this needs stopping now. " I'm not sure that is the idea. But tbh I've read your post a few times and I can't work out what you are trying to say. Which 90pc won't makentje exchange? Worth nothing that the EU have q similar scheme with turkey, so I think it's okay legally. | |||
"Apparently, SKS is talking to the EU about a deal that sees us returning boat arrivals in return for taking in an asylum seeker who hasn't crossed. The idea is to break the gangs as they have no customers. And probably therefore means we will have reduced numbers to need to swap. On the face of it, I can see this working better than Rwanda. All ideas should be welcomed and explored. This may just end up in the lawyers hands again fighting to keep those that crossed in the UK. We are told that a person has a right to claim asylum where they choose so if they make it to the UK and say this is where they want asylum then how do you deport them and keep in the law. Not saying its not possible but some of the reasons given for past schemes not working have not gone away. Also on the bbc report today, members of the EU have reacted to SKS plans for a reset, mostly positively but also say any change will require concessions from the UK on other areas like freedom of movement interesting where reform lines would be if we can stop the boat people bit at the expense of softening Brexit !" The accusations being made are that Labour will slowly reverse brexit and this is one of the steps. Apparently in the kings speech was mention of a policy that could tie the UK to the EU in terms of mirroring their rules after just being given permission to deviate from them | |||
"How can they be returned so easily? Surely they will need to be processed and a case for asylum heard, appealed and appealed until exhausted? Secondly, why would France agree to this? The idea is simply take back a criminal and we take a compliant individual. I would need to understand a lot more detail for this to make sense to me.they didn't need to all that with the rwanda scheme! Ignoring the emotive criminal bit (as by the same definition they are probably illegally in France so already a criminal), I can see that if people agree only going into France as a stepping stone to UK and UK is no longer availaible they stop going into France. That is my point, the UK is still available, they will still need to be processed for the right to stay as an asylum seeker. Nothing has changed.available to whom ? While it may look like I've agreed with your point I'm not sure what your point is ! The conventions we have signed up to have not changed under this approach, which means crossing the channel is still an option. it's an option. But would you pay £10k or whatever it is if you knew you'd be swapped for someone else. And at best you are then sitting waiting for someone else to cross... But also waiting with loads of other people who haven't paid. Wouldn't you be tempted to not pay and not cross instead. There's a cool prisoner dilemma that's at play. " More likely the gangs get together a bunch of people accepting £10k to send those across because the person left behind paying is near the front of the legitimate queue. The crosser gets a small cut, gets sent back, get new papers and rinse repeat. Ludicrous work for these gangs i reckon | |||
"Apparently, SKS is talking to the EU about a deal that sees us returning boat arrivals in return for taking in an asylum seeker who hasn't crossed. The idea is to break the gangs as they have no customers. And probably therefore means we will have reduced numbers to need to swap. On the face of it, I can see this working better than Rwanda. All ideas should be welcomed and explored. This may just end up in the lawyers hands again fighting to keep those that crossed in the UK. We are told that a person has a right to claim asylum where they choose so if they make it to the UK and say this is where they want asylum then how do you deport them and keep in the law. Not saying its not possible but some of the reasons given for past schemes not working have not gone away. Also on the bbc report today, members of the EU have reacted to SKS plans for a reset, mostly positively but also say any change will require concessions from the UK on other areas like freedom of movement interesting where reform lines would be if we can stop the boat people bit at the expense of softening Brexit ! The accusations being made are that Labour will slowly reverse brexit and this is one of the steps. Apparently in the kings speech was mention of a policy that could tie the UK to the EU in terms of mirroring their rules after just being given permission to deviate from them" I wish that was the case, I wouldn’t have had to hold my nose when voting for them if they’d said they planned to rejoin the EU! | |||
"How can they be returned so easily? Surely they will need to be processed and a case for asylum heard, appealed and appealed until exhausted? Secondly, why would France agree to this? The idea is simply take back a criminal and we take a compliant individual. I would need to understand a lot more detail for this to make sense to me.they didn't need to all that with the rwanda scheme! Ignoring the emotive criminal bit (as by the same definition they are probably illegally in France so already a criminal), I can see that if people agree only going into France as a stepping stone to UK and UK is no longer availaible they stop going into France. That is my point, the UK is still available, they will still need to be processed for the right to stay as an asylum seeker. Nothing has changed.available to whom ? While it may look like I've agreed with your point I'm not sure what your point is ! The conventions we have signed up to have not changed under this approach, which means crossing the channel is still an option. it's an option. But would you pay £10k or whatever it is if you knew you'd be swapped for someone else. And at best you are then sitting waiting for someone else to cross... But also waiting with loads of other people who haven't paid. Wouldn't you be tempted to not pay and not cross instead. There's a cool prisoner dilemma that's at play. This is not how it is going to work, just because you don't come in a small boat means you get auto entry, they will still need vetting. That means 90%+ wont make the 1for1 exchange, so get in the boat pay your money and you are in. If the idea is to take without vetting, this needs stopping now. I'm not sure that is the idea. But tbh I've read your post a few times and I can't work out what you are trying to say. Which 90pc won't makentje exchange? Worth nothing that the EU have q similar scheme with turkey, so I think it's okay legally. " I will be clearer, I was walking around the edge of this rather than being direct. If this scheme is to lay on a bigger boat and accept the people making the crossings today, as they do today with no papers etc, they have achieved nothing more than providing an opportunity to allow more people to cross into the country. They may have removed the need of the smuggling gangs but at what cost? It is the equivalent of opening a supermarket next your local Waitrose and giving your product away to say you are more successful, people will certainly flock to you and take all they can while it is free. | |||
"How can they be returned so easily? Surely they will need to be processed and a case for asylum heard, appealed and appealed until exhausted? Secondly, why would France agree to this? The idea is simply take back a criminal and we take a compliant individual. I would need to understand a lot more detail for this to make sense to me.they didn't need to all that with the rwanda scheme! Ignoring the emotive criminal bit (as by the same definition they are probably illegally in France so already a criminal), I can see that if people agree only going into France as a stepping stone to UK and UK is no longer availaible they stop going into France. That is my point, the UK is still available, they will still need to be processed for the right to stay as an asylum seeker. Nothing has changed.available to whom ? While it may look like I've agreed with your point I'm not sure what your point is ! The conventions we have signed up to have not changed under this approach, which means crossing the channel is still an option. it's an option. But would you pay £10k or whatever it is if you knew you'd be swapped for someone else. And at best you are then sitting waiting for someone else to cross... But also waiting with loads of other people who haven't paid. Wouldn't you be tempted to not pay and not cross instead. There's a cool prisoner dilemma that's at play. This is not how it is going to work, just because you don't come in a small boat means you get auto entry, they will still need vetting. That means 90%+ wont make the 1for1 exchange, so get in the boat pay your money and you are in. If the idea is to take without vetting, this needs stopping now. I'm not sure that is the idea. But tbh I've read your post a few times and I can't work out what you are trying to say. Which 90pc won't makentje exchange? Worth nothing that the EU have q similar scheme with turkey, so I think it's okay legally. I will be clearer, I was walking around the edge of this rather than being direct. If this scheme is to lay on a bigger boat and accept the people making the crossings today, as they do today with no papers etc, they have achieved nothing more than providing an opportunity to allow more people to cross into the country. They may have removed the need of the smuggling gangs but at what cost? It is the equivalent of opening a supermarket next your local Waitrose and giving your product away to say you are more successful, people will certainly flock to you and take all they can while it is free. " It may disrupt the gangs especially at the start but for every law abiding person waiting patiently in France they need an equal number of boat cross people to make the journey and be swapped with. If the scheme reduces or even stops that at some point, then those waiting in France have less and less or even no one to be swapped with. It also means the UK denying asylum to the boat cross people without hearing their case | |||
"How can they be returned so easily? Surely they will need to be processed and a case for asylum heard, appealed and appealed until exhausted? Secondly, why would France agree to this? The idea is simply take back a criminal and we take a compliant individual. I would need to understand a lot more detail for this to make sense to me.they didn't need to all that with the rwanda scheme! Ignoring the emotive criminal bit (as by the same definition they are probably illegally in France so already a criminal), I can see that if people agree only going into France as a stepping stone to UK and UK is no longer availaible they stop going into France. That is my point, the UK is still available, they will still need to be processed for the right to stay as an asylum seeker. Nothing has changed.available to whom ? While it may look like I've agreed with your point I'm not sure what your point is ! The conventions we have signed up to have not changed under this approach, which means crossing the channel is still an option. it's an option. But would you pay £10k or whatever it is if you knew you'd be swapped for someone else. And at best you are then sitting waiting for someone else to cross... But also waiting with loads of other people who haven't paid. Wouldn't you be tempted to not pay and not cross instead. There's a cool prisoner dilemma that's at play. This is not how it is going to work, just because you don't come in a small boat means you get auto entry, they will still need vetting. That means 90%+ wont make the 1for1 exchange, so get in the boat pay your money and you are in. If the idea is to take without vetting, this needs stopping now. I'm not sure that is the idea. But tbh I've read your post a few times and I can't work out what you are trying to say. Which 90pc won't makentje exchange? Worth nothing that the EU have q similar scheme with turkey, so I think it's okay legally. I will be clearer, I was walking around the edge of this rather than being direct. If this scheme is to lay on a bigger boat and accept the people making the crossings today, as they do today with no papers etc, they have achieved nothing more than providing an opportunity to allow more people to cross into the country. They may have removed the need of the smuggling gangs but at what cost? It is the equivalent of opening a supermarket next your local Waitrose and giving your product away to say you are more successful, people will certainly flock to you and take all they can while it is free. It may disrupt the gangs especially at the start but for every law abiding person waiting patiently in France they need an equal number of boat cross people to make the journey and be swapped with. If the scheme reduces or even stops that at some point, then those waiting in France have less and less or even no one to be swapped with. It also means the UK denying asylum to the boat cross people without hearing their case" Law abiding citizen 
You mean all those who are forced to cross using rubber dinghies because the British Government refuses to create safe routes?
Any proposal that takes away the need for people to use smugglers to get to the UK is good.
The UK now needs to start processing those who are being held all over the place to get the numbers down rather than holding them in limbo to create a political statement for the benefit of the far right.
Other countries seem to manage so why can't Britain?
| |||
"How can they be returned so easily? Surely they will need to be processed and a case for asylum heard, appealed and appealed until exhausted? Secondly, why would France agree to this? The idea is simply take back a criminal and we take a compliant individual. I would need to understand a lot more detail for this to make sense to me.they didn't need to all that with the rwanda scheme! Ignoring the emotive criminal bit (as by the same definition they are probably illegally in France so already a criminal), I can see that if people agree only going into France as a stepping stone to UK and UK is no longer availaible they stop going into France. That is my point, the UK is still available, they will still need to be processed for the right to stay as an asylum seeker. Nothing has changed.available to whom ? While it may look like I've agreed with your point I'm not sure what your point is ! The conventions we have signed up to have not changed under this approach, which means crossing the channel is still an option. it's an option. But would you pay £10k or whatever it is if you knew you'd be swapped for someone else. And at best you are then sitting waiting for someone else to cross... But also waiting with loads of other people who haven't paid. Wouldn't you be tempted to not pay and not cross instead. There's a cool prisoner dilemma that's at play. This is not how it is going to work, just because you don't come in a small boat means you get auto entry, they will still need vetting. That means 90%+ wont make the 1for1 exchange, so get in the boat pay your money and you are in. If the idea is to take without vetting, this needs stopping now. I'm not sure that is the idea. But tbh I've read your post a few times and I can't work out what you are trying to say. Which 90pc won't makentje exchange? Worth nothing that the EU have q similar scheme with turkey, so I think it's okay legally. I will be clearer, I was walking around the edge of this rather than being direct. If this scheme is to lay on a bigger boat and accept the people making the crossings today, as they do today with no papers etc, they have achieved nothing more than providing an opportunity to allow more people to cross into the country. They may have removed the need of the smuggling gangs but at what cost? It is the equivalent of opening a supermarket next your local Waitrose and giving your product away to say you are more successful, people will certainly flock to you and take all they can while it is free. It may disrupt the gangs especially at the start but for every law abiding person waiting patiently in France they need an equal number of boat cross people to make the journey and be swapped with. If the scheme reduces or even stops that at some point, then those waiting in France have less and less or even no one to be swapped with. It also means the UK denying asylum to the boat cross people without hearing their case Law abiding citizen
You mean all those who are forced to cross using rubber dinghies because the British Government refuses to create safe routes?
Any proposal that takes away the need for people to use smugglers to get to the UK is good.
The UK now needs to start processing those who are being held all over the place to get the numbers down rather than holding them in limbo to create a political statement for the benefit of the far right.
Other countries seem to manage so why can't Britain?
"When we had a functioning asylum system it became overwhelmed by bogus claimants, mostly economic migrants. We have to ask why the UK is such a magnet. Possibly generous benefits, housing, healthcare, legal aid? If we incentivise channel crossings what can we expect? | |||
"You mean all those who are forced to cross using rubber dinghies because the British Government refuses to create safe routes?" Nobody is being forced to cross. They do so of their own choice. The 1951 Convention does not require any country to create safe routes for asylum seekers, and hence no country does so. | |||
"How can they be returned so easily? Surely they will need to be processed and a case for asylum heard, appealed and appealed until exhausted? Secondly, why would France agree to this? The idea is simply take back a criminal and we take a compliant individual. I would need to understand a lot more detail for this to make sense to me.they didn't need to all that with the rwanda scheme! Ignoring the emotive criminal bit (as by the same definition they are probably illegally in France so already a criminal), I can see that if people agree only going into France as a stepping stone to UK and UK is no longer availaible they stop going into France. That is my point, the UK is still available, they will still need to be processed for the right to stay as an asylum seeker. Nothing has changed.available to whom ? While it may look like I've agreed with your point I'm not sure what your point is ! The conventions we have signed up to have not changed under this approach, which means crossing the channel is still an option. it's an option. But would you pay £10k or whatever it is if you knew you'd be swapped for someone else. And at best you are then sitting waiting for someone else to cross... But also waiting with loads of other people who haven't paid. Wouldn't you be tempted to not pay and not cross instead. There's a cool prisoner dilemma that's at play. This is not how it is going to work, just because you don't come in a small boat means you get auto entry, they will still need vetting. That means 90%+ wont make the 1for1 exchange, so get in the boat pay your money and you are in. If the idea is to take without vetting, this needs stopping now. I'm not sure that is the idea. But tbh I've read your post a few times and I can't work out what you are trying to say. Which 90pc won't makentje exchange? Worth nothing that the EU have q similar scheme with turkey, so I think it's okay legally. I will be clearer, I was walking around the edge of this rather than being direct. If this scheme is to lay on a bigger boat and accept the people making the crossings today, as they do today with no papers etc, they have achieved nothing more than providing an opportunity to allow more people to cross into the country. They may have removed the need of the smuggling gangs but at what cost? It is the equivalent of opening a supermarket next your local Waitrose and giving your product away to say you are more successful, people will certainly flock to you and take all they can while it is free. It may disrupt the gangs especially at the start but for every law abiding person waiting patiently in France they need an equal number of boat cross people to make the journey and be swapped with. If the scheme reduces or even stops that at some point, then those waiting in France have less and less or even no one to be swapped with. It also means the UK denying asylum to the boat cross people without hearing their case Law abiding citizen
You mean all those who are forced to cross using rubber dinghies because the British Government refuses to create safe routes?
Any proposal that takes away the need for people to use smugglers to get to the UK is good.
The UK now needs to start processing those who are being held all over the place to get the numbers down rather than holding them in limbo to create a political statement for the benefit of the far right.
Other countries seem to manage so why can't Britain?
When we had a functioning asylum system it became overwhelmed by bogus claimants, mostly economic migrants. We have to ask why the UK is such a magnet. Possibly generous benefits, housing, healthcare, legal aid? If we incentivise channel crossings what can we expect?"Such a magnet? If that were the case, more would have tried to settle in the UK than in other European countries. The UK is only a magnet in the dreams of nationalist wankers. Ineptitude, poor governance and an unwillingness to process claiments is the reason why the numbers are so high. Hopefully this grown up government will change that. | |||
"How can they be returned so easily? Surely they will need to be processed and a case for asylum heard, appealed and appealed until exhausted? Secondly, why would France agree to this? The idea is simply take back a criminal and we take a compliant individual. I would need to understand a lot more detail for this to make sense to me.they didn't need to all that with the rwanda scheme! Ignoring the emotive criminal bit (as by the same definition they are probably illegally in France so already a criminal), I can see that if people agree only going into France as a stepping stone to UK and UK is no longer availaible they stop going into France. That is my point, the UK is still available, they will still need to be processed for the right to stay as an asylum seeker. Nothing has changed.available to whom ? While it may look like I've agreed with your point I'm not sure what your point is ! The conventions we have signed up to have not changed under this approach, which means crossing the channel is still an option. it's an option. But would you pay £10k or whatever it is if you knew you'd be swapped for someone else. And at best you are then sitting waiting for someone else to cross... But also waiting with loads of other people who haven't paid. Wouldn't you be tempted to not pay and not cross instead. There's a cool prisoner dilemma that's at play. This is not how it is going to work, just because you don't come in a small boat means you get auto entry, they will still need vetting. That means 90%+ wont make the 1for1 exchange, so get in the boat pay your money and you are in. If the idea is to take without vetting, this needs stopping now. I'm not sure that is the idea. But tbh I've read your post a few times and I can't work out what you are trying to say. Which 90pc won't makentje exchange? Worth nothing that the EU have q similar scheme with turkey, so I think it's okay legally. I will be clearer, I was walking around the edge of this rather than being direct. If this scheme is to lay on a bigger boat and accept the people making the crossings today, as they do today with no papers etc, they have achieved nothing more than providing an opportunity to allow more people to cross into the country. They may have removed the need of the smuggling gangs but at what cost? It is the equivalent of opening a supermarket next your local Waitrose and giving your product away to say you are more successful, people will certainly flock to you and take all they can while it is free. It may disrupt the gangs especially at the start but for every law abiding person waiting patiently in France they need an equal number of boat cross people to make the journey and be swapped with. If the scheme reduces or even stops that at some point, then those waiting in France have less and less or even no one to be swapped with. It also means the UK denying asylum to the boat cross people without hearing their case Law abiding citizen
You mean all those who are forced to cross using rubber dinghies because the British Government refuses to create safe routes?
Any proposal that takes away the need for people to use smugglers to get to the UK is good.
The UK now needs to start processing those who are being held all over the place to get the numbers down rather than holding them in limbo to create a political statement for the benefit of the far right.
Other countries seem to manage so why can't Britain?
When we had a functioning asylum system it became overwhelmed by bogus claimants, mostly economic migrants. We have to ask why the UK is such a magnet. Possibly generous benefits, housing, healthcare, legal aid? If we incentivise channel crossings what can we expect?
Such a magnet?
If that were the case, more would have tried to settle in the UK than in other European countries.
The UK is only a magnet in the dreams of nationalist wankers.
Ineptitude, poor governance and an unwillingness to process claiments is the reason why the numbers are so high.
Hopefully this grown up government will change that."You haven't actually said how they will process them, what will be different now so they can reject those that are illegally here. How will that work? | |||
"How can they be returned so easily? Surely they will need to be processed and a case for asylum heard, appealed and appealed until exhausted? Secondly, why would France agree to this? The idea is simply take back a criminal and we take a compliant individual. I would need to understand a lot more detail for this to make sense to me.they didn't need to all that with the rwanda scheme! Ignoring the emotive criminal bit (as by the same definition they are probably illegally in France so already a criminal), I can see that if people agree only going into France as a stepping stone to UK and UK is no longer availaible they stop going into France. That is my point, the UK is still available, they will still need to be processed for the right to stay as an asylum seeker. Nothing has changed.available to whom ? While it may look like I've agreed with your point I'm not sure what your point is ! The conventions we have signed up to have not changed under this approach, which means crossing the channel is still an option. it's an option. But would you pay £10k or whatever it is if you knew you'd be swapped for someone else. And at best you are then sitting waiting for someone else to cross... But also waiting with loads of other people who haven't paid. Wouldn't you be tempted to not pay and not cross instead. There's a cool prisoner dilemma that's at play. This is not how it is going to work, just because you don't come in a small boat means you get auto entry, they will still need vetting. That means 90%+ wont make the 1for1 exchange, so get in the boat pay your money and you are in. If the idea is to take without vetting, this needs stopping now. I'm not sure that is the idea. But tbh I've read your post a few times and I can't work out what you are trying to say. Which 90pc won't makentje exchange? Worth nothing that the EU have q similar scheme with turkey, so I think it's okay legally. I will be clearer, I was walking around the edge of this rather than being direct. If this scheme is to lay on a bigger boat and accept the people making the crossings today, as they do today with no papers etc, they have achieved nothing more than providing an opportunity to allow more people to cross into the country. They may have removed the need of the smuggling gangs but at what cost? It is the equivalent of opening a supermarket next your local Waitrose and giving your product away to say you are more successful, people will certainly flock to you and take all they can while it is free. It may disrupt the gangs especially at the start but for every law abiding person waiting patiently in France they need an equal number of boat cross people to make the journey and be swapped with. If the scheme reduces or even stops that at some point, then those waiting in France have less and less or even no one to be swapped with. It also means the UK denying asylum to the boat cross people without hearing their case Law abiding citizen
You mean all those who are forced to cross using rubber dinghies because the British Government refuses to create safe routes?
Any proposal that takes away the need for people to use smugglers to get to the UK is good.
The UK now needs to start processing those who are being held all over the place to get the numbers down rather than holding them in limbo to create a political statement for the benefit of the far right.
Other countries seem to manage so why can't Britain?
When we had a functioning asylum system it became overwhelmed by bogus claimants, mostly economic migrants. We have to ask why the UK is such a magnet. Possibly generous benefits, housing, healthcare, legal aid? If we incentivise channel crossings what can we expect?
Such a magnet?
If that were the case, more would have tried to settle in the UK than in other European countries.
The UK is only a magnet in the dreams of nationalist wankers.
Ineptitude, poor governance and an unwillingness to process claiments is the reason why the numbers are so high.
Hopefully this grown up government will change that.
You haven't actually said how they will process them, what will be different now so they can reject those that are illegally here.
How will that work?"Now, if I could answer all your very pertinent questions, I would be prime minister or have a magic ball. Perhaps you think I am the Prime Minister that you ask such a pertinent question or perhaps you are just being naive given that I am not. I am sure that you have your own ideas of how this will work (or not) and probably neither of us will be correct so, let's wait to find out shall we? | |||
"How can they be returned so easily? Surely they will need to be processed and a case for asylum heard, appealed and appealed until exhausted? Secondly, why would France agree to this? The idea is simply take back a criminal and we take a compliant individual. I would need to understand a lot more detail for this to make sense to me.they didn't need to all that with the rwanda scheme! Ignoring the emotive criminal bit (as by the same definition they are probably illegally in France so already a criminal), I can see that if people agree only going into France as a stepping stone to UK and UK is no longer availaible they stop going into France. That is my point, the UK is still available, they will still need to be processed for the right to stay as an asylum seeker. Nothing has changed.available to whom ? While it may look like I've agreed with your point I'm not sure what your point is ! The conventions we have signed up to have not changed under this approach, which means crossing the channel is still an option. it's an option. But would you pay £10k or whatever it is if you knew you'd be swapped for someone else. And at best you are then sitting waiting for someone else to cross... But also waiting with loads of other people who haven't paid. Wouldn't you be tempted to not pay and not cross instead. There's a cool prisoner dilemma that's at play. This is not how it is going to work, just because you don't come in a small boat means you get auto entry, they will still need vetting. That means 90%+ wont make the 1for1 exchange, so get in the boat pay your money and you are in. If the idea is to take without vetting, this needs stopping now. I'm not sure that is the idea. But tbh I've read your post a few times and I can't work out what you are trying to say. Which 90pc won't makentje exchange? Worth nothing that the EU have q similar scheme with turkey, so I think it's okay legally. I will be clearer, I was walking around the edge of this rather than being direct. If this scheme is to lay on a bigger boat and accept the people making the crossings today, as they do today with no papers etc, they have achieved nothing more than providing an opportunity to allow more people to cross into the country. They may have removed the need of the smuggling gangs but at what cost? It is the equivalent of opening a supermarket next your local Waitrose and giving your product away to say you are more successful, people will certainly flock to you and take all they can while it is free. It may disrupt the gangs especially at the start but for every law abiding person waiting patiently in France they need an equal number of boat cross people to make the journey and be swapped with. If the scheme reduces or even stops that at some point, then those waiting in France have less and less or even no one to be swapped with. It also means the UK denying asylum to the boat cross people without hearing their case Law abiding citizen
You mean all those who are forced to cross using rubber dinghies because the British Government refuses to create safe routes?
Any proposal that takes away the need for people to use smugglers to get to the UK is good.
The UK now needs to start processing those who are being held all over the place to get the numbers down rather than holding them in limbo to create a political statement for the benefit of the far right.
Other countries seem to manage so why can't Britain?
When we had a functioning asylum system it became overwhelmed by bogus claimants, mostly economic migrants. We have to ask why the UK is such a magnet. Possibly generous benefits, housing, healthcare, legal aid? If we incentivise channel crossings what can we expect?
Such a magnet?
If that were the case, more would have tried to settle in the UK than in other European countries.
The UK is only a magnet in the dreams of nationalist wankers.
Ineptitude, poor governance and an unwillingness to process claiments is the reason why the numbers are so high.
Hopefully this grown up government will change that.
You haven't actually said how they will process them, what will be different now so they can reject those that are illegally here.
How will that work?
Now, if I could answer all your very pertinent questions, I would be prime minister or have a magic ball.
Perhaps you think I am the Prime Minister that you ask such a pertinent question or perhaps you are just being naive given that I am not.
I am sure that you have your own ideas of how this will work (or not) and probably neither of us will be correct so, let's wait to find out shall we?"If you have no idea how to fix the problem, why are you so critical and sure what should be done in your posts above?..... | |||
"How can they be returned so easily? Surely they will need to be processed and a case for asylum heard, appealed and appealed until exhausted? Secondly, why would France agree to this? The idea is simply take back a criminal and we take a compliant individual. I would need to understand a lot more detail for this to make sense to me.they didn't need to all that with the rwanda scheme! Ignoring the emotive criminal bit (as by the same definition they are probably illegally in France so already a criminal), I can see that if people agree only going into France as a stepping stone to UK and UK is no longer availaible they stop going into France. That is my point, the UK is still available, they will still need to be processed for the right to stay as an asylum seeker. Nothing has changed.available to whom ? While it may look like I've agreed with your point I'm not sure what your point is ! The conventions we have signed up to have not changed under this approach, which means crossing the channel is still an option. it's an option. But would you pay £10k or whatever it is if you knew you'd be swapped for someone else. And at best you are then sitting waiting for someone else to cross... But also waiting with loads of other people who haven't paid. Wouldn't you be tempted to not pay and not cross instead. There's a cool prisoner dilemma that's at play. This is not how it is going to work, just because you don't come in a small boat means you get auto entry, they will still need vetting. That means 90%+ wont make the 1for1 exchange, so get in the boat pay your money and you are in. If the idea is to take without vetting, this needs stopping now. I'm not sure that is the idea. But tbh I've read your post a few times and I can't work out what you are trying to say. Which 90pc won't makentje exchange? Worth nothing that the EU have q similar scheme with turkey, so I think it's okay legally. I will be clearer, I was walking around the edge of this rather than being direct. If this scheme is to lay on a bigger boat and accept the people making the crossings today, as they do today with no papers etc, they have achieved nothing more than providing an opportunity to allow more people to cross into the country. They may have removed the need of the smuggling gangs but at what cost? It is the equivalent of opening a supermarket next your local Waitrose and giving your product away to say you are more successful, people will certainly flock to you and take all they can while it is free. It may disrupt the gangs especially at the start but for every law abiding person waiting patiently in France they need an equal number of boat cross people to make the journey and be swapped with. If the scheme reduces or even stops that at some point, then those waiting in France have less and less or even no one to be swapped with. It also means the UK denying asylum to the boat cross people without hearing their case Law abiding citizen
You mean all those who are forced to cross using rubber dinghies because the British Government refuses to create safe routes?
Any proposal that takes away the need for people to use smugglers to get to the UK is good.
The UK now needs to start processing those who are being held all over the place to get the numbers down rather than holding them in limbo to create a political statement for the benefit of the far right.
Other countries seem to manage so why can't Britain?
When we had a functioning asylum system it became overwhelmed by bogus claimants, mostly economic migrants. We have to ask why the UK is such a magnet. Possibly generous benefits, housing, healthcare, legal aid? If we incentivise channel crossings what can we expect?
Such a magnet?
If that were the case, more would have tried to settle in the UK than in other European countries.
The UK is only a magnet in the dreams of nationalist wankers.
Ineptitude, poor governance and an unwillingness to process claiments is the reason why the numbers are so high.
Hopefully this grown up government will change that.
You haven't actually said how they will process them, what will be different now so they can reject those that are illegally here.
How will that work?
Now, if I could answer all your very pertinent questions, I would be prime minister or have a magic ball.
Perhaps you think I am the Prime Minister that you ask such a pertinent question or perhaps you are just being naive given that I am not.
I am sure that you have your own ideas of how this will work (or not) and probably neither of us will be correct so, let's wait to find out shall we?
If you have no idea how to fix the problem, why are you so critical and sure what should be done in your posts above?....."Why do you only ask questions? | |||
"How can they be returned so easily? Surely they will need to be processed and a case for asylum heard, appealed and appealed until exhausted? Secondly, why would France agree to this? The idea is simply take back a criminal and we take a compliant individual. I would need to understand a lot more detail for this to make sense to me.they didn't need to all that with the rwanda scheme! Ignoring the emotive criminal bit (as by the same definition they are probably illegally in France so already a criminal), I can see that if people agree only going into France as a stepping stone to UK and UK is no longer availaible they stop going into France. That is my point, the UK is still available, they will still need to be processed for the right to stay as an asylum seeker. Nothing has changed.available to whom ? While it may look like I've agreed with your point I'm not sure what your point is ! The conventions we have signed up to have not changed under this approach, which means crossing the channel is still an option. it's an option. But would you pay £10k or whatever it is if you knew you'd be swapped for someone else. And at best you are then sitting waiting for someone else to cross... But also waiting with loads of other people who haven't paid. Wouldn't you be tempted to not pay and not cross instead. There's a cool prisoner dilemma that's at play. This is not how it is going to work, just because you don't come in a small boat means you get auto entry, they will still need vetting. That means 90%+ wont make the 1for1 exchange, so get in the boat pay your money and you are in. If the idea is to take without vetting, this needs stopping now. I'm not sure that is the idea. But tbh I've read your post a few times and I can't work out what you are trying to say. Which 90pc won't makentje exchange? Worth nothing that the EU have q similar scheme with turkey, so I think it's okay legally. I will be clearer, I was walking around the edge of this rather than being direct. If this scheme is to lay on a bigger boat and accept the people making the crossings today, as they do today with no papers etc, they have achieved nothing more than providing an opportunity to allow more people to cross into the country. They may have removed the need of the smuggling gangs but at what cost? It is the equivalent of opening a supermarket next your local Waitrose and giving your product away to say you are more successful, people will certainly flock to you and take all they can while it is free. It may disrupt the gangs especially at the start but for every law abiding person waiting patiently in France they need an equal number of boat cross people to make the journey and be swapped with. If the scheme reduces or even stops that at some point, then those waiting in France have less and less or even no one to be swapped with. It also means the UK denying asylum to the boat cross people without hearing their case Law abiding citizen
You mean all those who are forced to cross using rubber dinghies because the British Government refuses to create safe routes?
Any proposal that takes away the need for people to use smugglers to get to the UK is good.
The UK now needs to start processing those who are being held all over the place to get the numbers down rather than holding them in limbo to create a political statement for the benefit of the far right.
Other countries seem to manage so why can't Britain?
When we had a functioning asylum system it became overwhelmed by bogus claimants, mostly economic migrants. We have to ask why the UK is such a magnet. Possibly generous benefits, housing, healthcare, legal aid? If we incentivise channel crossings what can we expect?
Such a magnet?
If that were the case, more would have tried to settle in the UK than in other European countries.
The UK is only a magnet in the dreams of nationalist wankers.
Ineptitude, poor governance and an unwillingness to process claiments is the reason why the numbers are so high.
Hopefully this grown up government will change that.
You haven't actually said how they will process them, what will be different now so they can reject those that are illegally here.
How will that work?
Now, if I could answer all your very pertinent questions, I would be prime minister or have a magic ball.
Perhaps you think I am the Prime Minister that you ask such a pertinent question or perhaps you are just being naive given that I am not.
I am sure that you have your own ideas of how this will work (or not) and probably neither of us will be correct so, let's wait to find out shall we?
If you have no idea how to fix the problem, why are you so critical and sure what should be done in your posts above?.....
Why do you only ask questions?"I have posted plenty of my thoughts in this thread, go take a read. I have asked you questions because your post was not clear in the how, it was angry in tone too. And it is how a forum of this type actually works, we write down things and people will respond with questions or counter arguments.  | |||
"How can they be returned so easily? Surely they will need to be processed and a case for asylum heard, appealed and appealed until exhausted? Secondly, why would France agree to this? The idea is simply take back a criminal and we take a compliant individual. I would need to understand a lot more detail for this to make sense to me.they didn't need to all that with the rwanda scheme! Ignoring the emotive criminal bit (as by the same definition they are probably illegally in France so already a criminal), I can see that if people agree only going into France as a stepping stone to UK and UK is no longer availaible they stop going into France. That is my point, the UK is still available, they will still need to be processed for the right to stay as an asylum seeker. Nothing has changed.available to whom ? While it may look like I've agreed with your point I'm not sure what your point is ! The conventions we have signed up to have not changed under this approach, which means crossing the channel is still an option. it's an option. But would you pay £10k or whatever it is if you knew you'd be swapped for someone else. And at best you are then sitting waiting for someone else to cross... But also waiting with loads of other people who haven't paid. Wouldn't you be tempted to not pay and not cross instead. There's a cool prisoner dilemma that's at play. This is not how it is going to work, just because you don't come in a small boat means you get auto entry, they will still need vetting. That means 90%+ wont make the 1for1 exchange, so get in the boat pay your money and you are in. If the idea is to take without vetting, this needs stopping now. I'm not sure that is the idea. But tbh I've read your post a few times and I can't work out what you are trying to say. Which 90pc won't makentje exchange? Worth nothing that the EU have q similar scheme with turkey, so I think it's okay legally. I will be clearer, I was walking around the edge of this rather than being direct. If this scheme is to lay on a bigger boat and accept the people making the crossings today, as they do today with no papers etc, they have achieved nothing more than providing an opportunity to allow more people to cross into the country. They may have removed the need of the smuggling gangs but at what cost? It is the equivalent of opening a supermarket next your local Waitrose and giving your product away to say you are more successful, people will certainly flock to you and take all they can while it is free. It may disrupt the gangs especially at the start but for every law abiding person waiting patiently in France they need an equal number of boat cross people to make the journey and be swapped with. If the scheme reduces or even stops that at some point, then those waiting in France have less and less or even no one to be swapped with. It also means the UK denying asylum to the boat cross people without hearing their case Law abiding citizen
You mean all those who are forced to cross using rubber dinghies because the British Government refuses to create safe routes?
Any proposal that takes away the need for people to use smugglers to get to the UK is good.
The UK now needs to start processing those who are being held all over the place to get the numbers down rather than holding them in limbo to create a political statement for the benefit of the far right.
Other countries seem to manage so why can't Britain?
When we had a functioning asylum system it became overwhelmed by bogus claimants, mostly economic migrants. We have to ask why the UK is such a magnet. Possibly generous benefits, housing, healthcare, legal aid? If we incentivise channel crossings what can we expect?
Such a magnet?
If that were the case, more would have tried to settle in the UK than in other European countries.
The UK is only a magnet in the dreams of nationalist wankers.
Ineptitude, poor governance and an unwillingness to process claiments is the reason why the numbers are so high.
Hopefully this grown up government will change that.
You haven't actually said how they will process them, what will be different now so they can reject those that are illegally here.
How will that work?"I'm assuming "them" are the class that we have agreed to take in return for sending back the boat crossers. I hate to answer a question with a question, but your questsik suggests the current approach fails to identify and reject false cases. What's the evidence for this ? While rejection rates are currently low (and much lower than undr Blair irrc), the rates vary wildly by nationality which suggests there is some scrutiny. | |||
"How can they be returned so easily? Surely they will need to be processed and a case for asylum heard, appealed and appealed until exhausted? Secondly, why would France agree to this? The idea is simply take back a criminal and we take a compliant individual. I would need to understand a lot more detail for this to make sense to me.they didn't need to all that with the rwanda scheme! Ignoring the emotive criminal bit (as by the same definition they are probably illegally in France so already a criminal), I can see that if people agree only going into France as a stepping stone to UK and UK is no longer availaible they stop going into France. That is my point, the UK is still available, they will still need to be processed for the right to stay as an asylum seeker. Nothing has changed.available to whom ? While it may look like I've agreed with your point I'm not sure what your point is ! The conventions we have signed up to have not changed under this approach, which means crossing the channel is still an option. it's an option. But would you pay £10k or whatever it is if you knew you'd be swapped for someone else. And at best you are then sitting waiting for someone else to cross... But also waiting with loads of other people who haven't paid. Wouldn't you be tempted to not pay and not cross instead. There's a cool prisoner dilemma that's at play. This is not how it is going to work, just because you don't come in a small boat means you get auto entry, they will still need vetting. That means 90%+ wont make the 1for1 exchange, so get in the boat pay your money and you are in. If the idea is to take without vetting, this needs stopping now. I'm not sure that is the idea. But tbh I've read your post a few times and I can't work out what you are trying to say. Which 90pc won't makentje exchange? Worth nothing that the EU have q similar scheme with turkey, so I think it's okay legally. I will be clearer, I was walking around the edge of this rather than being direct. If this scheme is to lay on a bigger boat and accept the people making the crossings today, as they do today with no papers etc, they have achieved nothing more than providing an opportunity to allow more people to cross into the country. They may have removed the need of the smuggling gangs but at what cost? It is the equivalent of opening a supermarket next your local Waitrose and giving your product away to say you are more successful, people will certainly flock to you and take all they can while it is free. It may disrupt the gangs especially at the start but for every law abiding person waiting patiently in France they need an equal number of boat cross people to make the journey and be swapped with. If the scheme reduces or even stops that at some point, then those waiting in France have less and less or even no one to be swapped with. It also means the UK denying asylum to the boat cross people without hearing their case Law abiding citizen
You mean all those who are forced to cross using rubber dinghies because the British Government refuses to create safe routes?
Any proposal that takes away the need for people to use smugglers to get to the UK is good.
The UK now needs to start processing those who are being held all over the place to get the numbers down rather than holding them in limbo to create a political statement for the benefit of the far right.
Other countries seem to manage so why can't Britain?
When we had a functioning asylum system it became overwhelmed by bogus claimants, mostly economic migrants. We have to ask why the UK is such a magnet. Possibly generous benefits, housing, healthcare, legal aid? If we incentivise channel crossings what can we expect?
Such a magnet?
If that were the case, more would have tried to settle in the UK than in other European countries.
The UK is only a magnet in the dreams of nationalist wankers.
Ineptitude, poor governance and an unwillingness to process claiments is the reason why the numbers are so high.
Hopefully this grown up government will change that.
You haven't actually said how they will process them, what will be different now so they can reject those that are illegally here.
How will that work?I'm assuming "them" are the class that we have agreed to take in return for sending back the boat crossers.
I hate to answer a question with a question, but your questsik suggests the current approach fails to identify and reject false cases. What's the evidence for this ? While rejection rates are currently low (and much lower than undr Blair irrc), the rates vary wildly by nationality which suggests there is some scrutiny. "I’ve said it more than once in this thread.. We are signed up to the 1951 refugee convention, so I can’t see how a person coming here in a small boat will be returned to France, unless we process them differently than we do today. I get the idea this is to cut out the smugglers / gangs but that will only encourage more people, who will have a free trip. Macron has also said France will not take returns, just a couple of days ago. I can’t see how this is solving the increasing numbers of people coming to the UK as economic migrants. | |||
"I can’t see how this is solving the increasing numbers of people coming to the UK as economic migrants. " The idea is that everyone that crosses in a small boat will be sent back to France. After a while the immigrants will be less likely to pay for a crossing if they know that they'll just get sent back, and the gangs that organise the crossings will find something more profitable to do. In the meantime we take in one immigrant for each person that gets sent back, to make the scheme legal. In theory, the number of people crossing will drop to zero, and so we'll not need to take in any after it starts working. Of course, it relies on France accepting the idea, and therefore accepting that all the immigrants not coming over here will end up staying in France. | |||
"How can they be returned so easily? Surely they will need to be processed and a case for asylum heard, appealed and appealed until exhausted? Secondly, why would France agree to this? The idea is simply take back a criminal and we take a compliant individual. I would need to understand a lot more detail for this to make sense to me.they didn't need to all that with the rwanda scheme! Ignoring the emotive criminal bit (as by the same definition they are probably illegally in France so already a criminal), I can see that if people agree only going into France as a stepping stone to UK and UK is no longer availaible they stop going into France. That is my point, the UK is still available, they will still need to be processed for the right to stay as an asylum seeker. Nothing has changed.available to whom ? While it may look like I've agreed with your point I'm not sure what your point is ! The conventions we have signed up to have not changed under this approach, which means crossing the channel is still an option. it's an option. But would you pay £10k or whatever it is if you knew you'd be swapped for someone else. And at best you are then sitting waiting for someone else to cross... But also waiting with loads of other people who haven't paid. Wouldn't you be tempted to not pay and not cross instead. There's a cool prisoner dilemma that's at play. This is not how it is going to work, just because you don't come in a small boat means you get auto entry, they will still need vetting. That means 90%+ wont make the 1for1 exchange, so get in the boat pay your money and you are in. If the idea is to take without vetting, this needs stopping now. I'm not sure that is the idea. But tbh I've read your post a few times and I can't work out what you are trying to say. Which 90pc won't makentje exchange? Worth nothing that the EU have q similar scheme with turkey, so I think it's okay legally. I will be clearer, I was walking around the edge of this rather than being direct. If this scheme is to lay on a bigger boat and accept the people making the crossings today, as they do today with no papers etc, they have achieved nothing more than providing an opportunity to allow more people to cross into the country. They may have removed the need of the smuggling gangs but at what cost? It is the equivalent of opening a supermarket next your local Waitrose and giving your product away to say you are more successful, people will certainly flock to you and take all they can while it is free. It may disrupt the gangs especially at the start but for every law abiding person waiting patiently in France they need an equal number of boat cross people to make the journey and be swapped with. If the scheme reduces or even stops that at some point, then those waiting in France have less and less or even no one to be swapped with. It also means the UK denying asylum to the boat cross people without hearing their case Law abiding citizen
You mean all those who are forced to cross using rubber dinghies because the British Government refuses to create safe routes?
Any proposal that takes away the need for people to use smugglers to get to the UK is good.
The UK now needs to start processing those who are being held all over the place to get the numbers down rather than holding them in limbo to create a political statement for the benefit of the far right.
Other countries seem to manage so why can't Britain?
"I used the term law abiding to distinguish between those that are apparently going to wait to be swapped with those who use small boats to cross. Of course those in the first group may also be criminals but I wouldn't assume they are. I was not aware of people being forced by the UK government to cross in small boats. Shocking revelation if true | |||
"I can’t see how this is solving the increasing numbers of people coming to the UK as economic migrants. The idea is that everyone that crosses in a small boat will be sent back to France. After a while the immigrants will be less likely to pay for a crossing if they know that they'll just get sent back, and the gangs that organise the crossings will find something more profitable to do. In the meantime we take in one immigrant for each person that gets sent back, to make the scheme legal. In theory, the number of people crossing will drop to zero, and so we'll not need to take in any after it starts working. Of course, it relies on France accepting the idea, and therefore accepting that all the immigrants not coming over here will end up staying in France." will they stay on France or just not bother if they known they can't get to England. May be a win for France too if the gangs are broken. | |||
"I can’t see how this is solving the increasing numbers of people coming to the UK as economic migrants." "The idea is that everyone that crosses in a small boat will be sent back to France. After a while the immigrants will be less likely to pay for a crossing if they know that they'll just get sent back, and the gangs that organise the crossings will find something more profitable to do. In the meantime we take in one immigrant for each person that gets sent back, to make the scheme legal. In theory, the number of people crossing will drop to zero, and so we'll not need to take in any after it starts working. Of course, it relies on France accepting the idea, and therefore accepting that all the immigrants not coming over here will end up staying in France." "will they stay on France or just not bother if they known they can't get to England. May be a win for France too if the gangs are broken." That's an interesting point. I assume that those people coming here looking for a better life are choosing Britain simply because they know the language. It seems to me that if they can't get into the UK, they'll just look for someone where else. It might not be France though, they have the whole of the EU to choose from. | |||
