Oh FFS. Not again!

[Mrs Ten Names]

Hmm, asking liberals for numbers and limits is always tumbleweed time.

I wouldn't deny you a helping hand if it potentially saved your life and that of others.
You, on the other hand, what to kill asylum seekers as they arrive. Or better still push their boats back for them to drown in the cold sea.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

The elections in Germany will be wake up call to the 'left', they will have to listen to the people or cease to exist. Expect some changes shortly, Scholz is already moving in the required direction, he has no choice.

I suspect Labour might be too arrogant to do the same.

Due to the anti foreigner rhetoric espoused by the extreme right, driven by their ambition and exploiting fear.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

A smuggler was gunned down in a hail of bullets in Libya last week: he'd managed to wrangle a gig on the coastguard but was responsible for thousands of people being trafficked across the Med to Italy. Hard to say if it's related to his activities or just a victim of Libyan justice, but an armed patrol or two along the French coast wouldn't hurt.

Why bother with guns when rope is just as easily obtained?

 

[motorbiking]

There's two issues.

1) Isolationists don't want to accept any asylum seekers. Racists and bigots don't want to accept particular types of asylum seekers.

2) People trying to get to the UK to claim asylum generally have to take small unsafe boats to get here.

The real problem is that people who object to 1 use 2 as the excuse.

So things like creating legal pathways or opening asylum claim centers in Calais and Embassies which would pretty much eliminate small boat crossings are unacceptable as it still allows refugees to settle here. Probably more as it will be safer for women and children who would be eligible but are scared by the journey.

There are scales of approaches. But the first thing is not to believe that the vast majority who come illegally are legitimate. It’s very much stacked against the authorities in rejecting an application. This on top of the backdrop that it’s extremely hard to send people back. So easier to grant approval.

On the scale of approaches, Germany ran an all are welcome policy and this has resulted in massive problems for Germany and a dangerous shift in politics.

At the other level you have Japan and Australia. Nobody gets approved in Japan so why try. Few get to Australia via remote processing, so why try.

Then in the middle you have informal and clandestine strategies such as Greece. Prosecute the “charities” to discourage them and treat those coming with hostility.

The U.Ks approach of cooperation and funding of France has failed. We are too ready to collect our “customers” from the border and provide them with a nice pickup. Too few “helmsmen” are prosecuted and we don’t have enough resources to defend/fight applications. Half the time appeals are unchallenged due to resource limitations.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Whatever needs doing has got to come from the French side. Whether it means smashing the gangs or preventing the boats setting off. You see on the news that they have 'minders' protecting the boats being launched with clubs and bats from being stopped by a couple of French Gendarmes with their arms metaphorically tied behind their backs. We need armed riot police or the army to outnumber these thugs - send over our own if we have to. Also needed are fast response teams, drones, light aircraft with heat seeking technology to pinpoint their location before they even cross the beach. Can’t be that hard if British TV crews can find and film them leaving. None of that is being done for the £75,000,000 that we are chipping in for. A better idea would be to pool resources with the French and Italians and prevent then landing in Italy in the first place.

Any that are picked up in the sea should be taken straight back to their departure point. Once it is known that there is little chance of setting off or being returned if they are picked up in the sea, that will put an end to the smuggling gangs business model. Waving them off and ferrying them across once they are at sea is just fuelling the smuggling business.

Your ideas are more expensive than accommodating the asylum seekers and processing them.
Reasons for such drastic and expensive measures would display the real motivation for stopping the boats.

 

[Mottie]

Think about that a bit longer. You're demanding the French stop every crossing,

You think about it. No, I’m saying we should send over manpower and technology to help them.

Also, I'll bet it's a french film crew.

You'd lose your money - BBC breakfast crew and reporter and in any case, think about it again, if a TV FILM CREW can find and film them, why can’t the French authorities fund and stop them?

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

There are scales of approaches. But the first thing is not to believe that the vast majority who come illegally are legitimate. It’s very much stacked against the authorities in rejecting an application. This on top of the backdrop that it’s extremely hard to send people back. So easier to grant approval.

they first have to be processed. They haven't been processing any for a long time.

On the scale of approaches, Germany ran an all are welcome policy and this has resulted in massive problems for Germany and a dangerous shift in politics.

And massive economic benefits.

The demographic consequences of the surge in immigration include a renewed rise in Germany’s population and the stabilization of the country’s median age. The macroeconomic consequences are hard to measure but look promising, since per capita income growth has held up and unemployment has declined.

How Has Germany’s Economy Been Affected by the Recent Surge in Immigration? - Liberty Street Economics

Germany emerged as a leading destination for immigration around 2011, as the country’s labor market improved while unemployment climbed elsewhere in the European Union. A second wave began in 2015, with refugees from the Middle East adding to already heavy inflows from Eastern Europe. The...

libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org

At the other level you have Japan and Australia. Nobody gets approved in Japan so why try. Few get to Australia via remote processing, so why try.

Your claim is incorrect:

Japan granted refugee status to record 303 asylum-seekers in 2023​

Japan granted refugee status to record 303 asylum-seekers in 2023

While this is a jump from the 202 people in 2022 and a new record high, the number is still considerably lower when compared with Western countries.

www.japantimes.co.jp

Applicants to Japan are limited due to the remoteness. The same applies to Australia.
It's not easy to arrive in Japan by small boat to claim asylum.

Due to geographic remoteness and periods of self-imposed isolation, the immigration, cultural assimilation and integration of foreign nationals into mainstream Japanese society has been comparatively limited.

Immigration to Japan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We are too ready to collect our “customers” from the border and provide them with a nice pickup.

Motorbiking's disinformation campaign is still in full swing.

 

[ellal]

A better idea would be to pool resources with the French and Italians and prevent then landing in Italy in the first place.

They actually also enter Europe via other countries than Italy

And it has to be pointed out that you rejected a union of cooperation way back in 2016...

So it's rather hypocritical to suggest such a thing now

But just out of interest, how would you stop people coming across the med?

Forcibly push them back so they can try again?

What is needed to prevent people fleeing in the first place...

But a lot of the same people who voted to isolate the UK from Europe were also of the opinion that foreign aid should be stopped and 'spent at home'...

However the only solution is to improve the lives of those who are fleeing from their own countries so that they don't have to flee!

 

[Brigadier]

You’ll never get an answer to that from the usual suspects and even if there was a limit, what would happen when that limit was reached?

You've had the answer before: that you don't like it, doesn't make it not the case.

 

[Mottie]

You've had the answer before: that you don't like it, doesn't make it not the case.

I can remember asking Notch once and his answer was "none". Remind me of the other answers I was given.

 

[Brigadier]

I can remember asking Notch once and his answer was "none". Remind me of the other answers I was given.

Pleeeeeeeease.................

 

[ellal]

Remind me of the other answers I was given.

See my post #158

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

I can remember asking Notch once and his answer was "none". Remind me of the other answers I was given.

How many close relatives would you refuse assistance if their life was at risk?

 

[motorbiking]

they first have to be processed. They haven't been processing any for a long time.


And massive economic benefits.

How Has Germany’s Economy Been Affected by the Recent Surge in Immigration? - Liberty Street Economics

Germany emerged as a leading destination for immigration around 2011, as the country’s labor market improved while unemployment climbed elsewhere in the European Union. A second wave began in 2015, with refugees from the Middle East adding to already heavy inflows from Eastern Europe. The...

libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org

I

Your claim is incorrect:

Japan granted refugee status to record 303 asylum-seekers in 2023

While this is a jump from the 202 people in 2022 and a new record high, the number is still considerably lower when compared with Western countries.

www.japantimes.co.jp

Applicants to Japan are limited due to the remoteness. The same applies to Australia.
It's not easy to arrive in Japan by small boat to claim asylum.

Immigration to Japan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Motorbiking's disinformation campaign is still in full swing.

I’d be happy with 303 per year. Even 10x that would be ok.

 

[IT Minion]

There are scales of approaches. But the first thing is not to believe that the vast majority who come illegally are legitimate. It’s very much stacked against the authorities in rejecting an application. This on top of the backdrop that it’s extremely hard to send people back. So easier to grant approval.

That's a bold and unsupported claim. Something like 75% are found to be legitimate refugees. Since its that determination that decides if they're legitimate refugees I think you're wrong