Voting intentions or who is least worst...

[winjim]

That wasn't the question.

To that question, my answer is "no idea".

I don't think we should be encouraging refugees/economic migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats.

We should (IMHO) either, put on a free ferry and remove the danger of the crossing, or, put a stop to it (no, I don't know how). The present situation is endangering lives, and, lining the pockets of various unsavoury "people smuggler" types.

It's a rhetorical followup question designed to interrogate the thinking which led to the first. If we can frame the journey across the Channel as 'the most dangerous sea crossing in the world' then it reinforces the 'first safe country' myth. It implies that the journey from the country of origin to the shores of France has been an easy one which plays up to the scrounging asylum seeker stereotype. It's disingenuous in implying altruistic reasons for impeding passage to refugees and it's nationalistic for suggesting that our country is so great that people are willing to attempt a route so exceptionally difficult and dangerous.

So. Where are the safe sea crossings?

 

[BoldonLad]

It's a rhetorical followup question designed to interrogate the thinking which led to the first. If we can frame the journey across the Channel as 'the most dangerous sea crossing in the world' then it reinforces the 'first safe country' myth. It implies that the journey from the country of origin to the shores of France has been an easy one which plays up to the scrounging asylum seeker stereotype. It's disingenuous in implying altruistic reasons for impeding passage to refugees and it's nationalistic for suggesting that our country is so great that people are willing to attempt a route so exceptionally difficult and dangerous.

So. Where are the safe sea crossings?

Just put a (free) ferry on, problem solved.

Based on this forum, I cannot imagine why they want to come to the UK, but, it would appear, they do.

 

[theclaud]

Just put a (free) ferry on, problem solved.

Good idea. Glad to have you on board, so to speak.

 

[Xipe Totec]

What's the reasoning behind the English Channel being 'the most dangerous sea crossing in the world'? Because to me that claim seems to be yet another weird form of British exceptionalism.

If Top Gear could drive cars across the English Channel - how hard can it be? 😁

 

[Deleted member 49]

If Top Gear could drive cars across the English Channel - how hard can it be? 😁

I'd like to see them do it with Patel playing Squid Games on them
To the death.....

 

[icowden]

or, put a stop to it (no, I don't know how).

That's easy. You actually invest in processing asylum claims quickly and efficiently rather than throwing desperate people into concentration camps.

 

[Pale Rider]

So. Where are the safe sea crossings?

On big boats from the French channel ports.

But you need a passport, or at least some identity paperwork, to get on one of those.

Bloody liberty, I know, but there it is.

 

[mudsticks]

Just put a (free) ferry on, problem solved.

Based on this forum, I cannot imagine why they want to come to the UK, but, it would appear, they do.

Good plan, let's have safe routes for asylum seekers.

Do our bit.

Based on this forum.

And wider research even, thankfully you'll see that there are still a good number of humanitarians in this country.

Yes there are some really nasty, mean minded, people here too, but we don't have a monopoly on them, by any means, sadly they're everywhere.

Hence we have refugees fleeing in the first place.

But we could do a lot more.

 

[winjim]

On big boats from the French channel ports.

But you need a passport, or at least some identity paperwork, to get on one of those.

Bloody liberty, I know, but there it is.

If that's the only example you can give then it rather reinforces the point I was making.

 

[stowie]

On big boats from the French channel ports.

But you need a passport, or at least some identity paperwork, to get on one of those.

Bloody liberty, I know, but there it is.

Hmmmm.

Not so sure your Afghani or Somali refugee can just hop onto the Ferry with a passport. I would imagine they would need visas and a lot of documentation. All of which is controlled by the governments they are trying to flee. I think an Afghani fleeing the Taliban would find it a bit problematic to get paperwork via the Taliban government. Besides which the UK embassies aren't providing them anyway.

Refugees can only claim UK asylum when on UK soil. Hence the reason some will make difficult crossings via small boat. The system was set up specifically by the government to make claiming UK asylum as difficult as possible. The boat crossings are simply a side effect of these policies.

One way to stop this (or at least reduce it significantly) would be to allow asylum claims outside the UK. But the government know this would mean more asylum applications and the Mail wouldn't like that. Besides the immigration system is FUBAR already. As people have mentioned, putting money into the immigration system would help resource it. At the moment it generates the government an income stream due to the high cost of student / work / family / citizenship visas.

It is worth repeating (again and again) that the overwhelming majority of refugees claim asylum outside the UK and have no intention of reaching the UK. Most that make it to Europe will claim Asylum in other European nations.

 

[icowden]

It is worth repeating (again and again) that the overwhelming majority of refugees claim asylum outside the UK and have no intention of reaching the UK. Most that make it to Europe will claim Asylum in other European nations.

Indeed, and the ones that do want to come to the UK, do so because they have families and possible job opportunities rather than the "sponging off benefits" line that the Daily Fail tends to trumpet. Those that are "sponging off benefits" are doing so because they are not allowed to work.