ml1dch Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 32 minutes ago, tinker said: It's purpose would be to stop the dangerous trend of these little boats, the legality of it all would need to be looked at. France should agree to it to save lives the situation is going to end in more horrendous deaths. So far we have been relatively lucky but sooner or later the luck will run out and 100's could be drowned in one incident. If the sanctity of life is the most important issue, why not just set up an asylum claims processing centre in Calais? If a claim can be made there, nobody needs to get in a dinghy do they? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted January 5, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 5, 2023 2 minutes ago, ml1dch said: If the sanctity of life is the most important issue, why not just set up an asylum claims processing centre in Calais? If a claim can be made there, nobody needs to get in a dinghy do they? Because it's a Tory government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 5 minutes ago, ml1dch said: If the sanctity of life is the most important issue, why not just set up an asylum claims processing centre in Calais? If a claim can be made there, nobody needs to get in a dinghy do they? Presumably the ones who are rejected still would? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 Just now, tinker said: Because it's a Tory government. That's the reason why it won't happen, not why it's not a viable solution (or partial solution, at least). French internal politics is the reason France won't agree to your suggested plan just as British internal politics is why the Tories won't. There are a lot of French people (and politicians) who dislike refugees as well, so why do their politicians have to agree to something electorally unpopular rather than ours agreeing to it? Particularly given it's the UK who consider it to be a big problem. France isn't really all that bothered about making their own lives difficult just to help the pricks who have been chucking diplomatic rocks at their heads for the last seven years. 1 minute ago, LondonLax said: Presumably the ones who are rejected still would? Why? If their claim is rejected, what benefit do they have in travelling to the UK to see another claim rejected? There might still be a small handful who want to come and try to work illegally, but you massively cut the numbers of people crossing dangerously. But as we know, dead people in the Channel isn't really the political problem here, it's living people in British hotels. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 51 minutes ago, tinker said: It's purpose would be to stop the dangerous trend of these little boats, the legality of it all would need to be looked at. France should agree to it to save lives the situation is going to end in more horrendous deaths. So far we have been relatively lucky but sooner or later the luck will run out and 100's could be drowned in one incident. Why do you think being sent back to France will persuade people not to attempt the crossing when currently we’re (trying) to threaten them with being sent to Rwanda? In fact, if the worse that could happen is they get sent back to France id suggest it will have the opposite affect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted January 5, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 5, 2023 3 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: Why do you think being sent back to France will persuade people not to attempt the crossing when currently we’re (trying) to threaten them with being sent to Rwanda? In fact, if the worse that could happen is they get sent back to France id suggest it will have the opposite affect. Before we send anyone to Rwanda they have to go through the process of getting a visa, rightly so. If they are shipped straight back to France without this step then they have wasted their money and the risk to their lives. Their motive is removed. I'm not against refugees , we have helped cause the instability in the world that drives them. What iam against is the risk they are taking to cross the Channel, it's a disaster waiting to happen and the motivation for crossing has to be removed. If it isn't then (hopefully I'm wrong) within 12 months we will be reading the news of how 100's have drowned 10 miles away from our shores , this isn't acceptable to me . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 12 minutes ago, tinker said: Before we send anyone to Rwanda they have to go through the process of getting a visa, rightly so *raises eyebrow* What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted January 5, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 5, 2023 13 minutes ago, ml1dch said: *raises eyebrow* What? *Slight smirk* A visa for the UK, if they are not accepted as a genuine refugee then are they sent to Rwanda after waiting 6 months in a center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 2 hours ago, bannedfromHandV said: I’m not well read on the subject but surely if someone enters a country illegally they can be deported - where to I guess is the more pressing issue. I think it’s confirmed they aren’t doing anything illegal. If it was the other option would be to arrest them and throw them in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVByrne Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 If you've made your way from Somalia across Africa and the desert to the Mediterranean. Managed to brave the crowded boat to Italy. Made your way across Europe. Then braved the English Channel in winter to get here.We should give you a job not fly you to Rwanda. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 5, 2023 Moderator Share Posted January 5, 2023 19 minutes ago, Genie said: I think it’s confirmed they aren’t doing anything illegal. If it was the other option would be to arrest them and throw them in jail. No that isn’t what happened. The courts decided the government could make the decision to send people to Rwanda (or wherever), it didn’t rule whether that was legal or not. That is a decision or another day and another court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 1 minute ago, bickster said: No that isn’t what happened. The courts decided the government could make the decision to send people to Rwanda (or wherever), it didn’t rule whether that was legal or not. That is a decision or another day and another court. Sorry, I am talking about the people arriving here and seeking asylum. What they are doing is not illegal as far as I aware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 5, 2023 Moderator Share Posted January 5, 2023 Just now, Genie said: Sorry, I am talking about the people arriving here and seeking asylum. What they are doing is not illegal as far as I aware. Oh sorry, crossed wires there. I think that one is illegal under UK law but legal under International law. That is we've passed a law that is contrary to International law. Another battle to be decided later but UK Govt will lose but that was never the point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 They are breaking laws. Crossing the channel in a dingy without documentation for one. Making the crossing paying criminal gangs is another. I tell you what, it'll help your visa application if you give us information on the criminal gangs that got you here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post ml1dch Posted January 5, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted January 5, 2023 (edited) 11 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: They are breaking laws. Crossing the channel in a dingy without documentation for one. Making the crossing paying criminal gangs is another. Didn't this conversation happen before? And you brought up these "laws"? And someone asked you to cite, or provide a link to the laws that you're talking about? And then you didn't? And got angry about it? Edited January 5, 2023 by ml1dch 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 18 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: They are breaking laws. Crossing the channel in a dingy without documentation for one. Making the crossing paying criminal gangs is another. I tell you what, it'll help your visa application if you give us information on the criminal gangs that got you here. It's not illegal to claim asylum, and you can't claim asylum until you're here. What laws are they breaking? Not the gangs, the individuals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 2 minutes ago, ml1dch said: Didn't this conversation happen before? And you brought up these "laws"? And someone asked you to cite, or provide a link to the laws that you're talking about? And then you didn't? And got angry about it? A reasonable moderator confirmed it for me. Is it not against the law to pay an organised crime gang to dispose of your identity, put you in a overcrowded dingy with the possibility of death to travel over a extremely busy stretch of water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: It's not illegal to claim asylum, and you can't claim asylum until you're here. What laws are they breaking? Not the gangs, the individuals? They are willingly paying these gangs to travel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icouldtelltheworld Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 3 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: They are willingly paying these gangs to travel. If this is the main offence, then it seems like a pretty solid argument for opening up safe and legal routes for people to claim asylum before they travel here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 1 hour ago, Genie said: I think it’s confirmed they aren’t doing anything illegal. If it was the other option would be to arrest them and throw them in jail. Whether they’re in jail or in a ‘housing / processing centre’ or whatever they call them I’m not sure it makes a lot of difference, perhaps more secure in prison dependent on the category of the facility. I thought it was illegal to enter a country without going through the ‘proper process(es)”, Britain or any other, perhaps I’m wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts