BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

[CXRAndy]

Open a UK asylum application office on the French coast

What good will that do, the French are actively shipping their illegals over to us.

Border force collects them, takes the life jackets and boats off them, takes them straight back to France. This is state sponsored illegal migration

 

[BoldonLad]

(Personal view) Government and politicians have and continue to make things worse and harder for themselves by continuing to refer to it as "illegal immigration". It isn't. It’s "irregular immigration" as there are no safe routes.

Continually calling it "illegal" empowers the racists who adopt the (incorrect) attitude that it's "illegal" and thus those refugees arriving seeking asylum ate breaking the law. This fallacy is just driving the racists to spend longer outside hotels and ensuring Farage has a high profile platform.

Open a UK asylum application office on the French coast and nobody would spend a fortune yo risk their and their children's lives for the same outcome.

Wouldn't this mean that either:

- all applications would have to be approved

or

- those who were refused would simply take "Plan B" embark on a small boat crossing, and take the chance on spinning out the appeals process, once physically in UK.

So, it may reduce the market for small boat crossings, but, it would not remove the market.

 

[briantrumpet]

Or is it Stramer's view as well? Does Starmer have such little backbone that he can't even say his real views? Does Starmer have so few morals that he'll empower racism rather than be honest about things? What does either say about Starmer as a person?

Like some say Netanyahu is pandering to his right wing, but increasingly people are now saying he's just hiding behind them and he holds those same views.

It's getting hard to tell. At least with Thatcher you knew where she stood, even if you didn't agree with her views, and she didn't waver, even when it meant she had to go.

I'm genuinely not sure if there are any politicians left with rock-solid principles (other than saying whatever they think will get them re-elected).

 

[Psamathe]

Wouldn't this mean that either:

- all applications would have to be approved

or

- those who were refused would simply take "Plan B" embark on a small boat crossing, and take the chance on spinning out the appeals process, once physically in UK.

So, it may reduce the market for small boat crossings, but, it would not remove the market.

If their application made in France was refused (and appeals process followed) then arriving on UK shores would not permit a 2nd go, just they'd have risked their lives and be many thousands of pounds poorer for the same outcome and their entry would be illegal (as they already formally know they are not accepted as refugees).

If their entry is genuinely illegal (as they've already been rejected) then detention can be more justified.

 

[Pross]

(Personal view) Government and politicians have and continue to make things worse and harder for themselves by continuing to refer to it as "illegal immigration". It isn't. It’s "irregular immigration" as there are no safe routes.

Continually calling it "illegal" empowers the racists who adopt the (incorrect) attitude that it's "illegal" and thus those refugees arriving seeking asylum ate breaking the law. This fallacy is just driving the racists to spend longer outside hotels and ensuring Farage has a high profile platform.

Open a UK asylum application office on the French coast and nobody would spend a fortune yo risk their and their children's lives for the same outcome.

It just seems so obvious that I keep thinking I’m missing an obvious problem. I think the obvious problem is the politicians don’t want to be seen to be ‘letting them in’ and would prefer them coming by nefarious means so they can be demonised. Thing is, no-one really seems bothered by the huge numbers coming in legally and this would just add a few thousand to that.

 

[BoldonLad]

If their application made in France was refused (and appeals process followed) then arriving on UK shores would not permit a 2nd go, just they'd have risked their lives and be many thousands of pounds poorer for the same outcome and their entry would be illegal (as they already formally know they are not accepted as refugees).

If their entry is genuinely illegal (as they've already been rejected) then detention can be more justified.

OK, but, what do you actually DO with them then, even "detained" they are still physically here.

To be clear, I am not anti-immigrant, or, anti-asylum seeker.

 

[CXRAndy]

Thing is, no-one really seems bothered by the huge numbers coming in legally

Yes the UK public is outraged on the pathetic visa rules, letting millions flood in, either disappear or claim asylum once here. Then cost thousands processing them.

Millions of British youth disenfranchised from work due to legal cheap labour migration

 

[Psamathe]

Maybe Labour Gov. should be proscribing Farage & Reform as their hate speech and racism is to my mind a bigger threat to the UK than a small organisation that cannot be named trying to help save lives in Gaza.

Be interesting to know how the costs of policing bin burners plus costs of investigation plus costs of finding perpetrators plus costs of court hearings plus costs of housing perpetrators in prison, etc. stack up against a bit of white spirit to clean some paint of some aircraft.

 

[Psamathe]

OK, but, what do you actually DO with them then, even "detained" they are still physically here.

To be clear, I am not anti-immigrant, or, anti-asylum seeker.

For countries with return agreements you can return them day after arrival. For countries without return agreements you can detain them pending return - remembering that at that point they are (knowingly) not refugees but migrants and can be safely returned without risk of persecution/torture/etc.

My understanding is that Rwanda was a non-starter because it was to be applied to everyone not just rejected asylum claimants and even accepted asylum claimants would not be allowed into UK - totally immoral.

Currently I'm assuming that the UK asylum checks are reliable and fair and correctly identify genuine refugees from economic migrants. I've not seen any allegations about the processes rejecting genuine refugees.

Economic migrants can be handled in the same way as anybody entering any country illegally.

nb Farage has to a significant degree contributed to the situation as were we still in the EU we'd still be part of Dublin III meaning many of the asylum seekers arriving would be having their claims handled in the first safe country. Now Farage has had his wishes and got us out of the EU we're now responsible for everybody arriving on our shores - Farage & Reform not publicising that achievement and other politicians too scared or too dumb to highlight it.

 

[Pross]

I’m re-reading a couple of Andy McNab books (just finished Fortress and now on State Of Emergency). They were written back in around 2012/2013 but feels almost like they’re based on somewhere in the not too distant future from the current situation (here and the US). Basically some right-wingers stoking up the tensions to get public support for draconian anti-immigrant legislation.

 

[BoldonLad]

For countries with return agreements you can return them day after arrival. For countries without return agreements you can detain them pending return - remembering that at that point they are (knowingly) not refugees but migrants and can be safely returned without risk of persecution/torture/etc.

My understanding is that Rwanda was a non-starter because it was to be applied to everyone not just rejected asylum claimants and even accepted asylum claimants would not be allowed into UK - totally immoral.

Currently I'm assuming that the UK asylum checks are reliable and fair and correctly identify genuine refugees from economic migrants. I've not seen any allegations about the processes rejecting genuine refugees.

Economic migrants can be handled in the same way as anybody entering any country illegally.

nb Farage has to a significant degree contributed to the situation as were we still in the EU we'd still be part of Dublin III meaning many of the asylum seekers arriving would be having their claims handled in the first safe country. Now Farage has had his wishes and got us out of the EU we're now responsible for everybody arriving on our shores - Farage & Reform not publicising that achievement and other politicians too scared or too dumb to highlight it.

I get every thing you say (including the EU bit, I voted “remain”), but, unless I have completely miss-understood, I think it can be summarised as:

1 we need a migrant / asylum reception centre in France.

2. It has to be capable of processing migrants/asylum seekers at a rate as fast or faster than they arrive

So far, I have heard any serious suggestion from any party as to such a solution, all of the rhetoric is on the symptoms (the boats), rather than the bottleneck (ie the processing).

 

[AndyRM]

Yes, that was my initial thought, but, it would appear to be more widespread, and, as I said, spilling over into daubing on mini-roundabouts.

I have lived here for 77 years, excluding a bit of "working away from home" time, to the best of my knowledge, the mass hysteria was usually over football, Rugby never got a look in.

Rugby has never really been a thing around here, largely because the Falcons are terrible and there hasn't been much investment in the game at grassroots level.

There were 42,000 people at the Stadium of Light on Friday. That's more than the entire attendance when England hosted it back in 2010, where matches averaged about 1,000 spectators.

 

[Pross]

I get every thing you say (including the EU bit, I voted “remain”), but, unless I have completely miss-understood, I think it can be summarised as:

1 we need a migrant / asylum reception centre in France.

2. It has to be capable of processing migrants/asylum seekers at a rate as fast or faster than they arrive

So far, I have heard any serious suggestion from any party as to such a solution, all of the rhetoric is on the symptoms (the boats), rather than the bottleneck (ie the processing).

I think they are all messing their pants about anything that would make it look like they are encouraging people coming in. The talk has to involve how they are going to stop immigrants whilst everyone ignores the huge numbers of legal migration that is going on and was actively encouraged by the last Government as even they realised the economy depends on it. It's hardly a shock that the numbers of asylum seekers arriving in small boats (or, previously, in the backs of lorries) increased massively when the previous system of providing facilities for applications overseas were withdrawn or that it increased further when we left the UK and the Dublin III regulation. It's probably the single biggest irony on Brexit that trying to 'take control of our borders' has led to this increase. Strangely I didn't hear Farage mention this at all in his speech yesterday.

 

[CXRAndy]

When the government ties its hands behind its back by staying in echr and is mercilessly abused by immigration lawyers at the UK tax payers expense. Its no wonder they numbers have increased.

Coupled to the Tories and labour wilfully turning a blind eye to the ballooning figures

We now critical political situation, with powder keg atmosphere on the streets..

Radical unpleasant steps will need to be taken to reverse the situation to gain full control of immigration whether legal or illegal migration

 

[CXRAndy]

This explains the disdain for Starmer even when he announces the exact thing that should, we all but wont


View: https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/1960330035828552176?t=yN3ztf-zsEdSeOSuMUjeVw&s=19