Stand off drowning migrants and report – or face prosecution, sailors warned

Of course it would be a lot easier just to give them safe passage and deal with the whole process quickly and efficiently once they arrive.

Not going to happen all the time this lot are in power though.

Can you imagine all those asylum seekers setting up temporary camps in the middle of Paris to register claims and wait for a decision, GG13

MaizieD

It does seem obvious that the process of dealing with asylum applications should start in France, (at ports rather than the British Embassy in Paris, though..) But apparently, applications for asylum have to be made in the country that is being applied to. So that would entail the area in France where British staff process applications being designated British territory.

Can you imagine France, in the current dire state of Franco-British relationships, agreeing to that?

(P.S. I'm going by what an immigration expert has said on twitter. It could be wrong. Willing to be corrected if anyone knows better)

No that is correct?.

MaizieD

It does seem obvious that the process of dealing with asylum applications should start in France, (at ports rather than the British Embassy in Paris, though..) But apparently, applications for asylum have to be made in the country that is being applied to. So that would entail the area in France where British staff process applications being designated British territory.

Can you imagine France, in the current dire state of Franco-British relationships, agreeing to that?

(P.S. I'm going by what an immigration expert has said on twitter. It could be wrong. Willing to be corrected if anyone knows better)

That is why I suggested The British Embassy as it is classed as British soil

It would negate the need for a designated British Area in Calais and the complication which could arise.

Smuggling seems to be the standard, accepted term.
Yes, when we think of smuggling we think of covert operations, but the OCGs are covert as the authorities don't seem able to find or stop them.

www.unodc.org/toc/en/crimes/migrant-smuggling.html

If its a worse word we should use it.

They are moving people over international borders for gain. Surely that's trafficking? Maybe that's not the right word either.

I'm sure most of us could think of words we'd like to call them.

Whitewavemark2

Alegrias1

Calistemon

Why has the Telegraph started calling them smugglers?

Perhaps because that is the term used by the NCA to describe organised crime groups involved in the smuggling of people from France to the UK in small boats.

Oh OK. Thank you.

I still don't understand how its smuggling though. We see them leave and we see them arrive.

The power of language

I think people traffickers is even worse.
It's sickening

It does seem obvious that the process of dealing with asylum applications should start in France, (at ports rather than the British Embassy in Paris, though..) But apparently, applications for asylum have to be made in the country that is being applied to. So that would entail the area in France where British staff process applications being designated British territory.

Can you imagine France, in the current dire state of Franco-British relationships, agreeing to that?

(P.S. I'm going by what an immigration expert has said on twitter. It could be wrong. Willing to be corrected if anyone knows better)

Agree

growstuff

GrannyGravy13

Alegrias1

I would like to know why people think targeting the gangs will solve the problem?

People want to come here and the traffickers are filling a need. Of course we all want to stop them but however many we arrest, the desire to come here will still exist. So I keep thinking it's like back street abortions in the sixties, or Prohibition in America in the thirties. The basic need, the market if you like, is still there. Unless we address it at source, somebody somewhere is going to fulfil the need.

Which is why I suggested upthread that maybe the British Embassy in France could facilitate a travel waiver and start the process of these desperate asylum seekers negating the need for them to risk their lives crossing the channel in flimsy vessels.

Totally cutting out the cash cow of the criminals.

I don't know whether it work, but thank you for a constructive idea.

Ditto to what growstuff said.

Alegrias1

Calistemon

Why has the Telegraph started calling them smugglers?

Perhaps because that is the term used by the NCA to describe organised crime groups involved in the smuggling of people from France to the UK in small boats.

Oh OK. Thank you.

I still don't understand how its smuggling though. We see them leave and we see them arrive.

The power of language

Michael Morpurgo on Radio 4 this morning on the experience if a child asylum seeker.

Profoundly moving.

Calistemon

^Why has the Telegraph started calling them smugglers?^

Perhaps because that is the term used by the NCA to describe organised crime groups involved in the smuggling of people from France to the UK in small boats.

Oh OK. Thank you.

I still don't understand how its smuggling though. We see them leave and we see them arrive.

Yes, I realise that you know - perhaps not everyone does.
Over 10% of Jordan's population consists of Syrian refugees.

Most people forget what is happening in Syria.

Yes, I know. I was really asking those who say that refugees should stay in the first safe country they come to - if that were followed how many can the likes of Turkey be expected to take, and where will our share come from, as we have no borders?

Should Turkey, for instance, take all the refugees from Syria who arrive there, when they are not responsible for the war?

Turkey has taken about 3.6 million refugees from Syria. Many will want to go home again one day to rebuild their country. Jordan and Lebanon have taken about three quarters of a million each, probably more.

Why has the Telegraph started calling them smugglers?

Perhaps because that is the term used by the NCA to describe organised crime groups involved in the smuggling of people from France to the UK in small boats.

Can someone explain to me why asylum seekers (political or economic) are so desperate to come to the UK that they will pay huge amounts to people smugglers and risk their and their families’ lives, despite passing through other perfectly safe countries in Europe? I accept that some may have family who are here legally but they must be a small minority. This is a genuine question to which I would like an answer.
This has been answered, but I would like to ask why they should go to the first safe country? Surely that would soon get full - a lot fuller than the UK, which takes very few people. Should Turkey, for instance, take all the refugees from Syria who arrive there, when they are not responsible for the war?

As the UK is an island, from where should our fair share of refugees be coming?

MerylStreep

GillT57

This may be the time to remind people that as we are no longer in the EU, the free movement of peoples in Europe due to Schengen is none of our business.

There might not always be a Schengen area.

www.euronews.com/2021/06/02/brussels-unveils-plans-to-reform-borderless-schengen-area

Very interesting indeed MerylStreep. Very. This was being talked about in Brussels in June this year then? And things have gotten a lot worse since.

Maybe borders will be the way forward after all. We will see.

GrannyGravy13

Alegrias1

I would like to know why people think targeting the gangs will solve the problem?

People want to come here and the traffickers are filling a need. Of course we all want to stop them but however many we arrest, the desire to come here will still exist. So I keep thinking it's like back street abortions in the sixties, or Prohibition in America in the thirties. The basic need, the market if you like, is still there. Unless we address it at source, somebody somewhere is going to fulfil the need.

Which is why I suggested upthread that maybe the British Embassy in France could facilitate a travel waiver and start the process of these desperate asylum seekers negating the need for them to risk their lives crossing the channel in flimsy vessels.

Totally cutting out the cash cow of the criminals.

I don't know whether it work, but thank you for a constructive idea.

lemongrove, perhaps you need to go back and understand the meaning of 'xenophobic'.

lemongrove

There are very many ‘young friends’ it seems, who all have a xenophobic view of the UK.Hmmm.

Yes, I am very lucky. And no, they do not have xenophobic views of their country, but ashamed of the xenophobia they see on the front page of the Tabloids and elsewhere and what is going on in the name of this Government. They would be even more ashamed if they read some posts on GN.

Growstuff- brick wall indeed.

GillT57

This may be the time to remind people that as we are no longer in the EU, the free movement of peoples in Europe due to Schengen is none of our business.

There might not always be a Schengen area.

www.euronews.com/2021/06/02/brussels-unveils-plans-to-reform-borderless-schengen-area

Alegrias1

I would like to know why people think targeting the gangs will solve the problem?

People want to come here and the traffickers are filling a need. Of course we all want to stop them but however many we arrest, the desire to come here will still exist. So I keep thinking it's like back street abortions in the sixties, or Prohibition in America in the thirties. The basic need, the market if you like, is still there. Unless we address it at source, somebody somewhere is going to fulfil the need.

Which is why I suggested upthread that maybe the British Embassy in France could facilitate a travel waiver and start the process of these desperate asylum seekers negating the need for them to risk their lives crossing the channel in flimsy vessels.

Totally cutting out the cash cow of the criminals.

I would like to know why people think targeting the gangs will solve the problem?

People want to come here and the traffickers are filling a need. Of course we all want to stop them but however many we arrest, the desire to come here will still exist. So I keep thinking it's like back street abortions in the sixties, or Prohibition in America in the thirties. The basic need, the market if you like, is still there. Unless we address it at source, somebody somewhere is going to fulfil the need.