The Barge

[Brew_DD2]

What would you do with the immigrants that are not from persecuted countries and how would you qualify them?

Process their applications for asylum in the UK from whichever country they are in. If they meet the criteria, great, come on in. If they don't, then they have to apply elsewhere.

We have chosen not to have a process for remote application, because apparently having thousands of people risking their lives on boats and keeping them in processing centres at our expense is preferable.

I'm not sure about you, but I'd rather a system where people could be processed without having to pay criminals thousands to jump on a boat, and were able to work and contribute from the moment they arrive.

 

[Brew_DD2]

Many EU countries do not fully comply with the ECHR they veto parts that do not suit them

Erm... no.

 

[The Baron]

Well let them provide proof of who they are so that we can check if they have a relevant reason by having their passport as a minimum proof of who they are also we can check if they have criminal records but many do not provide this and they are the ones that are blocking up the system for the genuine cases

Erm... no.

Erm Yes

 

[Brew_DD2]

Well let them provide proof of who they are so that we can check if they have a relevant reason by having their passport as a minimum proof of who they are also we can check if they have criminal records but many do not provide this and they are the ones that are blocking up the system for the genuine cases

Erm Yes

I am all for checks being done, but let's do this on the continent so that we don't have the insane scenes in The Channel, and thousand held in holding centres at our expense.

Do you have any evidence of veto on the ECHR by any EU country?

I'll just leave this here...

https://www.coe.int/en/web/about-us/do-not-get-confused

 

[The Baron]

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hears cases related to the European Convention on Human Rights. Unlike European Court of Justice decisions, ECHR decisions are not binding though many human rights decisions are considered so important that they become part of EU law, which is binding on EU states.
Ps Goodnight

 

[Brew_DD2]

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hears cases related to the European Convention on Human Rights. Unlike European Court of Justice decisions, ECHR decisions are not binding though many human rights decisions are considered so important that they become part of EU law, which is binding on EU states.
Ps Goodnight

So you don't have any evidence of EU countries vetoing the European Convention on Human Rights. Got it.

I would really consider reading that link I posted in length.

 

[Rodcx500z]

I think the government want them here to go pick cauliflowers.

I like cauliflower

 

[Clint]

You would...

 

[Bosch]

As a teenager, I worked summer holidays and weekends all year round picking vegetables. Cabbages, turnips, Brussels sprouts and yes, even the cauliflower.
Wonderful job in summer, pretty miserable at 7am in December.

The European Court of Human Rights pre-date the European Union and the UK was a founding member.
Not aware of any EU countries that veto either ECHR rulings or cauliflowers.

 

[Brew_DD2]

As a teenager, I worked summer holidays and weekends all year round picking vegetables. Cabbages, turnips, Brussels sprouts and yes, even the cauliflower.
Wonderful job in summer, pretty miserable at 7am in December.

The European Court of Human Rights pre-date the European Union and the UK was a founding member.
Not aware of any EU countries that veto either ECHR rulings or cauliflowers.

Or the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

[MrJay83]

Well let them provide proof of who they are so that we can check if they have a relevant reason by having their passport as a minimum proof of who they are also we can check if they have criminal records but many do not provide this and they are the ones that are blocking up the system for the genuine cases

Erm Yes

I personally think if they show up with no documentation by destroying it on route then they should be deported back to the last country they came from (I accept that there will be some genuine cases for not having any).
The main hotel in my town is used to house them and lots of them seem genuine, decent people but there are lots of them I've seen just standing there leering at young girls (I live a stone's throw from it). These guys could be anybody, with any criminal convictions, on the run from any sort of pending convictions and they are just let loose on the streets.
I've always believed that a government's/country's #1 priority is to protect its citizens. I don't believe what is happening is compatible with that and as the father of a young daughter I think these barges are the least the government can do.

 

[Bosch]

Or the European Convention on Human Rights.

I always get court and Convention mixed up.
The same way I mix up Suella Braverman with that freaky Japanese girl from The Ring

 

[Chippy_Tea]

There is no legal obligation to claim asylum in the first country you find yourself in

I think we get that as its been pointed out several times already,.
Why would you risk your life trying to get to the UK on a small boat when you can stay in a country much closer to home, I get some have family here and some can speak English but again I will point out we have all seen the interviews where they say they want to come here for a better life.

 

[Brew_DD2]

I will point out we have all seen the interviews where they say they want to come here for a better life.

Being an asylum seeker and wanting a better life isn't mutually exclusive. Like I said in an earlier post, process applications on the continent, if they are genuine asylum claimants, they get in and get to start living and working here right away. The current system is costly and deliberately inhumane. We need more people of working age.

 

[Bosch]

I think we get that as its been pointed out several times already,.
Why would you risk your life trying to get to the UK on a small boat when you can stay in a country much closer to home, I get some have family here and some can speak English but again I will point out we have all seen the interviews where they say they want to come here for a better life.

What makes the United Kingdom such an important destination for migrants? • Eyes on Europe

 

[Donegal john]

No, very few French have conversational English.

Ps. I am currently holidaying in France, in a French water park, with my French wife and her family (who are french and swiss french).

Where do you sleep ? Under the slides ?

 

[dad_of_jon]

Process their applications for asylum in the UK from whichever country they are in. If they meet the criteria, great, come on in. If they don't, then they have to apply elsewhere.

We have chosen not to have a process for remote application, because apparently having thousands of people risking their lives on boats and keeping them in processing centres at our expense is preferable.

I'm not sure about you, but I'd rather a system where people could be processed without having to pay criminals thousands to jump on a boat, and were able to work and contribute from the moment they arrive.

We have chosen not to have a process for remote application, because apparently having thousands of people risking their lives on boats and keeping them in processing centres at our expense is preferable. Absolutely safer to dissuade immigration seekers for not going on boats.
How can this be achived? setup remote asylum application. - Then what if they are rejected?? - I suspected its back to the people traffickers and a boat.
A single change isn't going to fix the trafficking, remote asylum application and perhaps turning boats back and an agreement with the EU would be the minimum it would seem.

Is it incompetance or tardyness or down to money, because if its money their accountancy skills are lacking.

Was there just too much legislation to change due to brexit or what?

 

[Chippy_Tea]

Like I said in an earlier post, process applications on the continent, if they are genuine asylum claimants, they get in and get to start living and working here right away.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that but it's not those that are the problem its the boat people who cannot come here legally that are the problem those that cannot get here using your method are still going to come by small boat.

As it says below 45,000 made it here by boat in 2022 and we don't know how many drowned trying, it's these people we need to stop.


According to the latest data from the Home Office, 45,755 people reached the UK in 2022 after crossing the English Channel in small boats. In the first half of 2023 (January to June), the number of small boat arrivals was down 10% (at 11,434) compared to the same period in 2022.

 

[Clint]

"Start working ".....doing what exactly? There's plenty of people here who aren't asylum seekers that need to "start working".
People who "can't,won't or don't "...people who don't get up til 10 or 11 then have some day time tv to watch before doing ball all.

 

[Bosch]

"Start working ".....doing what exactly? There's plenty of people here who aren't asylum seekers that need to "start working".
People who "can't,won't or don't "...people who don't get up til 10 or 11 then have some day time tv to watch before doing ball all.

Probably low skill jobs, Prime Minister, Home Secretary or Editor of the Daily Mail spring to mind