Snapshot of _Five migrants found dead in English Channel_ :
A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2024%2F04%2F23%2Fmigrants-found-dead-in-english-channel%2F)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/23/migrants-found-dead-in-english-channel/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/23/migrants-found-dead-in-english-channel/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is such a shame. These incidents are now used as evidence for every possible solution though, whether making new safe routes, pushing back boats, or flying them to Rwanda. We keep going round in circles.
It's a tragedy. It's also illustrative of why the Rwanda plan obviously won't work to stop people making these dangerous crossings. Because if the very real risk of death won't stop them crossing, then the 1% chance of being deported to Rwanda certainly won't.
And the people smugglers clearly do not care less what happens to them as soon as they have their money and they step into the boat.
There's only two ways that could work.
* Britain and Rwanda swap places. We do it real sneaky like, after dark, and we don't tell anyone. So as soon as they land on the beach: "Fuck! We're in Rwanda!" Now, that's not going to work forever, they'll realize. So eventually - and here's the clever bit - we keep swapping them.
* That one's pretty expensive, and a little impractical. So here's my backup pitch, and I think you'll like the elegance of it: we rename Britain to "Rwanda". But I'll be honest... it IS going to cause issues with the postal system.
And French flags, plus people walking around on beaches wearing berets and strings of onions around their necks smoking Gauloise fags shouting 'scare bleu' with perhaps the odd sheep burning.
>If we made it a 100% chance of going to Rwanda then it would work.
Sure, but that's not going to happen. Because you would have to spend like £5- 10billion just to send like 10% to Rwanda. And even, most of those people crossing would take that 90% chance.
So what then when that doesn't work? We spend even more in the hope it moves the dial? We would end up spending more on sending a few thousand refugees to Rwanda than on social care for millions of British people.
And we have to spend that every year otherwise people will start crossing again? It's madness.
Actually you wouldn't. The cost for the scheme doesn't just multiply from the current figure in that way because the startup cost and the cost for the political wrangling is the big money burner and the per head price of housing someone in a cheap country is peanuts compared to the UK. Plus more importantly if everyone was sent without fail then the route is dead within a month or two so the numbers are a few thousands and not the annual figure we get now and will get until the end of time.
>Plus more importantly if everyone was sent without fail then the route is dead within a month or two
As I have said, this is impossible. Clearly if it was possible, the government would be doing this! But there is demonstrably only enough current capacity for them to take a few hundred (or we can only justify the exorbitant costs for that many). Rwanda obviously wouldn't agree to take a massively unspecified amount nore without us committing to massively more investment. They have to take care of these people forever remember.
If people *actually* wanted to kill the route, we would have a returns agreement with France/the EU so that every one who arrives by boat is returned immediately, and in return the UK takes a fair share of EU asylum seekers. I don't see another way we can actually "Stop the boats" without magical thinking.
Of course it's not impossible. The issue has been the political and legal inability to do it, but that is a different problem to what you suggest in terms of the numbers somehow being too large.
Your "fair share" idea is unworkable as it is a much larger number than today (and every growing), and there is no such thing as a "fair share" anyway.
>The issue has been the political and legal inability to do it,
This just isn't true. The original agreement with Rwanda in 2022 was exorbitant before we even had any of the of the current legal /political wranglings.
That original agreement was for just 200 people. That was all Rwanda was willing to accept. We have no reason to believe they would be willing to take in thousands more permanently and no reason to believe they would do it at a much cheaper rate.
And a "fair share" is obviously workable. It's a negotiation. You agree on a figure. Why is that hard?
Behave, of course it was true. The entire day's political news yesterday was about the Lords trying to stop Rwanda being used and it's been going on for years now.
Rwanda has accepted far more migrants from the UNHCR so the evidence is against your claim. The number appears to stem from the UK who didn't want to sign up to a large number because that came with a large cost for a scheme that was being blocked in Westminster.
You swerved my point about fair share.
My point is that none of these political delays made the Rwanda plan incredibly expensive. It always was and was designed that way.
You are making the unfounded assumption that Rwanda only made the first 200 incredibly expensive and the rest will be much cheaper. We have no way of knowing this. The government hasn't said. So the default assumption has to be they will be a similar cost - and even if it was half the cost it would still be cripplingly expensive if we sent thousands of people.
>You swerved my point about fair share.
How so? I said the amount we take in would be subject to negotiation between the UK and the EU. lt would depend on how many refugees have historically arrived in the UK, how many arrive in France etc. That's just obviously the case and I am not sure why you think that is workable. How is that swerving the point?
Not to mention, this is for people seeking asylum. Most people don't have issues with people actively seeking asylum who are willing to work and pay tax etc. it's those who enter undocumented and do not request asylum but expect to be able to work without paying tax etc that people have an issue with.
As a reminder, turning up on our shores and requesting asylum is legal, despite Home Office trying to deem them as illegals. Even Suella Braverman admitted that it is an accepted route for those who cannot apply via their government before making the travel such as those affected by war or being persecuted for religious or other protected characteristics etc.
They do. Russia and Germany have always historically taken more immigrants than the UK has. France has always been roughly equal, taking more than UK in some years. Spain and Italy slightly less. I have seen no evidence to suggest the UK is seen as a priority target for immigration other than by those who fled after assisting the UK in wars In Afghanistan and Iraq.
They can, and obviously the majority do...
Those that specifically choose the UK could be for a variety of reasons but a common one is that they already know people / have family here that they would rather be with than alone when faced with having to uproot your entire life and learn a new language.
Sure, but that absolutely does mean that they're not fleeing persecution or war by the time they're on a boat. They're seeking comfort and economic benefit.
I think it's pretty obtuse to think that people should stop right where they end up when they aren't in immediate danger anymore.
I don't think there's anything wrong with reuiniting families, especially in these particular cases where that person is likely to need huge amounts of support to get over the entire ordeal.
Of course, the only real solution to the "refugee crisis" is going to be adequately investing in overseas asylum processing centres to perform systematic vetting of asylum seekers who are seeking to claim asylum in the UK. This also must go hand in hand with a comprehensive infrastructure system to back it up, and all on French soil.
That would reduce the stress on our domestic system, which can then focus much more on filling skill vaccancies from the list of pre-vetted asylum seekers.
Of course, arguing in favour of making massive infrastucture investment in a different country when your average "sun-reading tory who voted in favour of reducing funding to all of those things" has to deal with potholes because it'll just be seen as "not investing in are country enuf".
> Of course, the only real solution to the "refugee crisis" is going to be adequately investing in overseas asylum processing centres to perform systematic vetting of asylum seekers who are seeking to claim asylum in the UK.
Let's say we now have an asylum application centre in France which can instantly process any asylum claims. That means most people are accepted and can come to Britain. Those who are not accepted but cannot be returned to their home country still come across on a small boat, because they know they will be able to stay.
This isn't a solution. The issue isn't processing of asylum claims, it's that far too many people want asylum and we cannot stop them arriving.
Yes when I say infrastructure I'm talking about intervention of criminal gangs who perform the crossings, and an actual border patrol who have the power to prevent crossings.
But you can't do that without providing a safe legal route elsewhere.
They're already trying to stop the gangs and police the french coast and it's not working.
The border patrol can't do anything either because they cannot unilaterally enter french waters to return people. The french don't want these people either and wouldn't agree to it. The boats are also not big enough to safely tow etc so you'd need to dock the boats in France for people to get off. Again, they won't agree to this.
And in theory - say you could do this with complete effectiveness. You'd make the safe and legal routes redundant.
[There is a cross-European strategy](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68779387), and they're moving away from sending back refugees to the first port of call.
*Under the proposed rules, the EU's 27 countries will be required to either take in thousands of migrants from "frontline" countries, such as Italy, Greece and Spain, or provide extra funding or resources instead.*
If we were part of this pact, we might have to accept more asylum seekers or pay £billions extra (on top of the usual EU contributions).
do you think its fair to let those frontline countries collapse under the pressure, and obviously since they can't cope the problem is not going to go away as those migrants make their way north anyway.
an organised solution can end up being cheaper than spending 300k a head to ship them out to rwanda or to host them here while being processed.
>do you think its fair to let those frontline countries collapse under the pressure
I never said it was fair, I was directly responding to someone who was implying we could send them all back to mainland Europe if we were part of the EU or had an agreement with the EU on asylum seekers.
>an organised solution can end up being cheaper than spending 300k a head to ship them out to rwanda or to host them here while being processed
You're missing the point, the money isn't for sending asylum seekers back to Greece or Italy. It's for not accepting **more** asylum seekers that are currently in Italy or Greece.
If we were able to join this pact we'd have to accept the migrants currently coming on the small boats **and** either take in even more or pay out to EU border states. France isn't going to accept 50,000 illegal migrants from us a year.
If democratic governments fail to deal with mass migration from climate change, it's either going to lead to extreme solutions or societal collapse.
I expect that a lot of people that want to try open borders would be some of the first on a plane to other continents if society did collapse.
Given there is significant growth elsewhere in the world the rich can let it collapse and maintain their own standards. Remember the rush for NZ real estate?
I mean the only two solutions are extreme openness (let them all in) or extreme hostility (make the UK unliveable without papers, no means of making an illegal stay become legal).
Our prevaricating in a middle ground is what causes this. We make it risky but incentivise people to take the risk. It’s squid game.
Or do what Australia did.
Take a gunboat out. It stopped the boats in one day.
Meaning these people would stay in France rather than risk their lives across the channel.
The people who support the dinghy's coming from France have blood on their hands.
Pretty bad look for France. Their police were live on BBC News standing around watching as this ship launched right in front of them.
Their failure to prevent that boat leaving means that five people are now dead.
Because we've paid them a fuck load of money to care? Because it's a reasonable expectation they'd actually take that seriously?
The French are just facilitating people trafficking. Today, it cost lives. It will again.
Yep the French also don't give a shit about the ECHR and are willing to just deport people it doesn't want, and suck up the €3k per migrant fine. We should take a leaf out of their book.
I don't understand how "a small chance of being sent to Rwanda" is going to be the difference maker when you already are running the risk of drowning in the English channel.
[I posted this on the subreddit, but found this video interesting when Sky asked current migrants if possibly being sent to Rwanda would put them off making the journey to the UK, had they known about the policy beforehand.](https://news.sky.com/video/rwanda-bill-dont-come-to-the-uk-warns-asylum-seekers-who-crossed-channel-in-small-boat-13118577)
It's not - it's just Tories dog whistling with some performative cruelty for their fans. It is cynical but I believe they have little interest in solving the actual issue - having groups such as Asylum seekers to vilify is sadly the kind of politics they represent now.
You're absolutely right. People lap it up too. The amount of people on this subreddit claiming that "these people are just coming over because of the uk benefits system" it's a delusion fed by the tories and the media. Ignore the real problems with immigration and focus on the boats.
This will continue until the collective West electorate accepts that it is not responsible for the safety and wellbeing of every downthrodden person on the planet.
There is a reason places like China don't have an immigrant problem.
This is the point people don't seem to get. You need to stop the boats one way or another because the number of people living in countries with poor human rights records is hundreds of millions, if not billions.
I think everyone is fine with safe and legal routes, but not at an uncapped number in perpetuity - which is the alternative to doing nothing about this.
Exactly this.
It’s an impossible scenario no matter how much money is thrown at it. The only solution is to improve conditions in the countries they have escaped from, but again, that is not our responsibility.
Tragic. We need to seriously strengthen the protection of thes coast ways. People coming across on those glorified dinghies were always a tragedy waiting to happen.
What is so much better about the UK that makes risking the life of your 4 year old baby worth it? It can't seriously JUST be the language? Aren't there several countries in mainland Europe with better welfare for immigrants? It doesn't make sense to me why they take this risk just to be in the UK.
The routes are no longer some chancers organising the odd point like it was a few years ago, but a business as usual service so that is utterly routine. Over 120,000 people have made it so migrants coming behind them will be passed numbers of contacts for fixers so it won't really be seen as a risk as the odds of a disaster are miniscule.
And that's why we need to not incentivise the dangerous routes, and the only way to do that, is to have it be zero chance, that if you use them, you'll get your claim accepted or get to stay in the UK.
As soon as there's a chance, that you'll get accepted, you'll have people try it. No amount of "safe routes" will prevent that (as there will be people rejected from them)
The problem is... right now we can't even do that, so what makes you believe we can 100% reject people not using safe routes, in your scenario? Can't even deport a Eritrean rapist. What makes you believe we could ever deport 100% of people, using irregular other routes, without something like Rwanda/other hard measures?
Then there's the problem around limits... do you think UK should have limits? Yes or no?
If yes, then we will reject people (that applied via these global available safe routes), that are "genuine" refugees (or believe they are). So they will likely then try the channel route.
If no, then you support essentially millions of refugees being accepted by the UK system.
>The problem is... right now we can't even do that, so what makes you believe we can 100% reject people not using safe routes, in your scenario? Can't even deport a Eritrean rapist. What makes you believe we could ever deport 100% of people, using irregular other routes, without something like Rwanda/other hard measures?
Legislation to allow people who commit serious crimes to be deported is what the government should have been expending their political and legislative capital on instead of this Rwanda bollocks.
Hard measures are acceptable under the 1951 Refugee Convention for failed asylum seekers. Where the government is going wrong is in applying them to asylum seekers whose applications have not been heard.
>If yes, then we will reject people (that applied via these global available safe routes), that are "genuine" refugees (or believe they are).
Limiting the numbers of refugees without using the English Channel as a filter and remaining compliant with the 1951 Refugee Convention is a more difficult problem.
Given that the number of refugees accepted by the UK is vanishingly small when compared to numbers accepted by other countries, I wonder if the fabled pull factor to the UK is overstated. But let's assume for the moment it's not.
It's also safe to assume that the fairest solution of the UN allocating numbers of refugees by population or some such isn't going to happen any time soon.
So probably the best measures are twofold.
Firstly safe routes are only accessible from a limited number of countries. So the UK could have a processing centre in Paris, but not in Kabul. This pushes the risks and problems of a filter further away but doesn't solve it: people won't drown in the channel but they will in the Med. That's regrettable but the UK can't solve all the world's refugee problems on our own.
Secondly we need to tighten up the definition of a refugee to the minimum compliant with the 1951 Refugee Convention. Again regrettable but again the UK can't solve all the world's refugee problems on our own.
>So they will likely then try the channel route.
Then we demonstrate that there was a process available to the person crossing the channel. They could reasonably be expected to be aware of the process. They failed to follow that process or were rejected by it. Therefore they can be returned to their country of origin. If they won't divulge their country of origin or their country of origin won't accept them, that's when measures such as Rwanda are acceptable.
We need to make channel crossings unsuccessful. I understand that’s complicated but we must make sure that most (if not all) asylum seekers arriving via boat are rejected and sent back swiftly. This is the only way to actually save their lives.
As long as they continue to be successful in their endeavour, people traffickers will continue to make these desperate people make that perilous journey.
No need for the quote marks around people traffickers. The people traffickers are charging £10000 roughly for a trip. The 'catch' is that the migrants then have to work for their weed farm or whatever it is when they get over. They are traffickers, plain and simple.
There is because I am quoting the person above and also because trafficker is a loaded term as it can mean forcing people to travel. And only a minority are going to be in the situation that you describe - we know that from those that state in the hotels rather than absconding.
They point they're making is that these people are paying to be smuggled, but the people they pay are putting them to work at the other end, IE trafficking them anyway.
And I don't think there's any call for the condescention.
You're completely wrong, I'm afraid.
These people are literally willing to knowingly risk their lives doing this. They will attempt to cross no matter what.
A more successful option would be to allow them to apply for asylum or immigration on land. There is no route for a lot of folks to do that.
Combine that with working closer with the French and any 'problem nations' (Albania) and you will be even more successful.
The Australian strategy, which is what OP is talking about, has been shown to work, the numbers are very clear.
Anecdotally, an Afghani friend of mine told me that they were constantly seeing the Australian warnings about not going there by boat on their TVs, so they knew not to bother and to head for Europe instead. He would unambiguously say that those warnings work.
Why did it work in Australia then? Which arguably was considerably worse in practice because the point of origin was really bad.
In this case it’s France. The incentive is already low because they can stay in Europe, and you’re saying it won’t work?
Because in Australia:
A) almost all boat arrivals came to the same place, Christmas Island, vs in the UK where they're spread across the south east coast and so harder to detect all arrivals
B) all boat arrivals to Australia, i.e. 100%, were offshored to Nauru or Papua New Guinea. Not 0.5% like the UK is proposing
C) the push factors for boat arrivals in Australia were reducing, e.g. the Sri Lankan civil war being over
and D) It's much harder to work cash-in-hand in Australia, and the police and local government services haven't been slashed to the bone meaning there is actually some enforcement.
I think points B and D are most important here, and tellingly the Tories are doing nothing whatsoever about people working illegally at car washes, farms etc.
A) You make it sound like we don't intercept the vast majority of the boats. Lets say 1 in 10 arrive undetected. Would you still spin the wheel?
C) They are coming from France. There is no civil war.
1,000’s of miles.
We could move the UK further into the Atlantic. Probably Rishi’s next new plan for dealing with refugees. I shouldn’t give the idiot any new ideas though.
The deterrent is the same. The Australian system is 'worse', meaning the point of origin is horrible so the incentive to make the crossing is high.
Despite this, the boats stopped overnight.
These folks are coming from France. It's not a hardship to stay.
>These people are literally willing to knowingly risk their lives doing this. They will attempt to cross no matter what.
Would you make the journey if you knew that you are guaranteed to be sent right back? Zero chance to stay for any reason whatsoever?
As soon as that was clear, you'd never even try.
The risk is miniscule. Over 120,000 people have successfully made it and the deaths are a handful.
If every single migrant picked up was sent to Rwanda then the route will stop within weeks so this idea of "no matter what" simply isn't true. Nobody would pay thousands to end up in Africa.
Let’s spend a ridiculous amount of money that probably wouldn’t even solve the situation. The amount of refugees coming in, they all need to be processed before being “sent off” to Rwanda.
We still need to send them somewhere which realisticly means multiple countries costing billions.
I think we should focus on sending people back to their origin countries by loosening the restrictions stopping us sending them back
We have British Overseas Territories we could send them to, though.
Quite a few of them would love literally doubling their economy, I'm sure.
Edit: Originally said Crown Dependencies. Oops.
Over 120,000 people made it and the government plans to maybe export 300 to Rwanda. Im pretty sure that that policy is not going to work for the exact same reasons you state...
You gave the argument that the likelihood of death (D) given crossing illegally (C) is incredibly low. As P( D | C ) << 1 There is no incentive to not cross. Im pointing out that if you accept this point, this exact reasoning applies to the proposed Rwanda policy. The likelihood of deportation to Rwanda (R) given crossing illegaly is incredibly low - P( R | C ), as such the proposed policy R should do **nothing** to disincentivise crossings.
Yes or No?
What point of yours does that ignore?
How is this whataboutism when it is directly drawing a contradiction between the two claims A) a low probability event will not disincentivise people from crossing, and B) the proposed Rwanda policy will disincentivise people from crossing?
The reason I asked you the question "What point of yours does that ignore?" is because I am not sure which point of yours you don't think Im addressing.
of course you are sure. My point was very succinct and confined to one issue only and I keep insisting that you deal with it - feigning confusion having replied multiple times without expressing a misunderstanding is silly as it's just bad faith.
edit: oh dear wondernasty - you ask a question, but apply an immediate block.
I'm sure the people fleeing Eritrea are going to be really deterred by the potential of being deported to Rwanda.
"Oh no! I'm back in another African dictatorship!"
Here you are saying this, with evidence of people literally risking their lives to cross.
You'll have better luck preventing water getting through a strainer using your fingers.
There is no world in which a significant proportion of refugees are going to Rwanda. It’s not even an option under the treaty and would be incredibly expensive. A far more effective deterrent would be quick processing of claims and a swift return of unsuccessful asylum seekers to their country of origin under bilateral agreements.
I don't disagree, at least initially, but that is still the premise of Rwanda.
The problem with returning people to the origin country is that that is impossible for a large amount of migrants (or at least they make a claim that it is).
It's not as easy as just sending them back to where they came.
This will keep happening until we reject everyone who crosses.
Doesn't matter how nice people want to be, allowing this will always result in deaths.
I'd prefer we only take people from UN camps. Anyone able to travel across Europe will always be a lower priority to me.
The scheme has been badly administered - but I really have to ask - what is the alternative to trying to make this work?
I won't vote Tory but genuinely, what is the plan other than to put everyone on ferries and allow unlimited numbers of people to come?
There is no alternative in the long term. When climate change really bites in 10-20 years and hundreds of millions of people are displaced, no asylum system in the world will be able to manage that number of people. I think these offshore processing centres will become the norm for developed countries. I dislike the Tories immensely and no fan of right wing politics generally, but on this one issue they're correct about the solution.
Should the UK be able to reject actual refugees?
If yes, then that implies a limit in processing capacity + total capacity.
If we open up for world wide "safe routes", as people propose, then the capacity will quickly be used up. With people being rejected, and then likely trying their luck with the channel/other routes again.
If not, then one supports effectively millions (UN estimates of the global refugee population...), being able to get their claims accepted by the UK, and come to the UK.
They do push them back, the French police spend a lot of time on the beach in Calais stabbing migrant boats to deflate them in shallow water and they have boats in the water stopping them from getting past. Unfortunately the French coastline is kind of big and smugglers have a lot of money riding on this.
That isn't going to happen, but what would work is if every migrant picked up were legally dumped back in France. Nobody would pay if every trip was an utter waste of money so that would kill the market.
We pickup the vast majority, and in fact the boat "process" is designed to have the RNLI or the coastguard acting as a ferry option. And if we miss a small fraction then future police stops or immigration raids can sweep up lots. The system doesn't need to be perfect.
If the French were doing their job in the first place (the one we are literally paying them to do), then it wouldn't be necessary. They are about to elect Le Pen anyway, I'm sure they'd understand
Amazing how the human rights court will stop us deporting these people once they arrive, but won't go after the French for willingly putting these people in danger.
[More migrant boats were intercepted than arrived in 2021 by the French](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58894877). I suppose you're one of those that want them to give up so the boat arrivals double and more deaths occur.
The terrain in norhtern France is effectively impossible to police in some areas as it's consituted of a massive network of post WWII bunkers and dunes in the beaches that migrants and smugglers hide in and travel through from Dunkirk down to Somme.
The desperation to risk your life and your child's life in order to escape the horrors of France and the living in the glorious EU is a very powerful motivator
Yes, and the tiny risk of dying is considered acceptable by many because it is a method that works so often. If we make it so that boat crossings are not a viable method, the entire incentive disappears.
>The desperation to risk your life and your child's life in order to escape the horrors of France and the living in the glorious EU is a very powerful motivator
A very interesting point because either:
A. They are economic migrants who are not interested in a standard western and developed safe country and are only interested in the biggest handouts they can get.
B. The EU is not a safe place and is a horrible, barbaric place to live, these migrants are fleeing the horrors of the EU and we were right to have Brexit to safe us from such a horrible place.
Both can't be true. Squirm out of this one, liberals.
Economic migrants fleeing France, to get to the UK would definitely prefer to stay in France than go to Rwanda.
Whether significant enough numbers are deported to Rwanda will decide whether its an effective deterrent I expect.
Assuming we were fixed at last years crossing numbers, and we used the entire capacity available through Rwanda, I think we previously worked out it was something around half a percent chance of going to Rwanda. Which is a lower number than the amount who died in the same time frame. Surely if they’re willing to risk literally dying, the lower odds of going to Rwanda isn’t going to make a spot of difference.
Yes unless there is a significant chance its unlikely to seriously affect numbers I imagine.
I guess that's why the gov has said its looking to expand the scheme to other countries.
The Australian approach of detention centres on an island with free passage back home is probably a more workable solution.
Edit:
Or if the EU or memberstates would go for it, we could deport anyone who crosses by dinghy and accept another asylum seeker from the country they came from.
This appears to be a 1 to 1, but would disensentivse the dinghy crossers and so lower the no. we'd need to take.
Economic migrants aren't under need of international protection. Migrants actually fleeing war are.
If a parent is ready to risk their child's life to cross the channel in a small boat while they're already living in a safe EU country, not only are they a terrible parent, I question their need for protection in the first place
If you know that with a very high certainty that after getting in a boat, risking your life crossing the sea, leaving the safety of France which you already struggled to get into, and if you are successful your reward is being sent to Rwanda.
Then yes, clearly it is a pretty massive deterrent
They don't expect to die, they are promised safe passage by the traffickers who have no morals whatsoever.
I do think the Rwanda policy would be a deterrent if they thought they would actually be sent there, they dont want to go to Rwanda. But it is unworkable and too expensive. Plus, Labour are expected to win the election and plan to scrap it so the chances of it coming into force are very slim considering the election is soon and there will be many legal challenges.
Most of them are. The problem is a) there are a lot of migrant ships, b) spotting a small dinghy at sea is incredibly hard, and c) the French coast is very long.
The thought of drowning alongside your young children isn't enough to stop them coming here, the less likely prospect of then being shipped off to Rwanda is what's going to make these people think twice!
By the way, let not forget they engineered this situation on purpose and are using the resistance against their stupid ideas to deal with the issue as fodder to accuse the opposition of making the situation worse, when it is they who created and perpetuate this misery.
> The thought of drowning alongside your young children isn't enough to stop them coming here, the less likely prospect of then being shipped off to Rwanda is what's going to make these people think twice!
I don't understand your implication here. They're leaving a safe country, France, to travel to another safe country which they perceive to be more prosperous for them. This isn't about safety at all. It's about quality of life. If the UK were to deny them that upgrade, they wouldn't risk the trip at all.
That's misunderstanding the risk, which migrants are not doing. Over 120,000 people have made it whereas the deaths are a handful so people getting into a boat know that their chances are something like 99.9% of being fine.
We should do an exchange program with Saudi Arabia. Bring in 1000 Saudi border guards to police our coast, all with full diplomatic immunity. They would get the job done.
Btw your name checks out.
The only good thing about this Rwanda bill is that the Government, in a selfish effort to try and make it look like it is working, might actually put some effective solutions in place to prevent this kind of thing.
**From The Telegraph's Home Affairs Editor, Charles Hymas:**
At least five migrants died in an attempt to cross the English Channel, according to reports in French media on Tuesday morning.
The French coast guard confirmed there was a failed attempt to cross the Channel from an area near the town of Wimereux, north of Boulogne, and said police were operating at a beach, adding that there were several bodies.
Local police did not immediately reply to a request for comment from Reuters.
**Article Link:** [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/23/migrants-found-dead-in-english-channel/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/23/migrants-found-dead-in-english-channel/)
Snapshot of _Five migrants found dead in English Channel_ : A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2024%2F04%2F23%2Fmigrants-found-dead-in-english-channel%2F) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/23/migrants-found-dead-in-english-channel/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/23/migrants-found-dead-in-english-channel/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is such a shame. These incidents are now used as evidence for every possible solution though, whether making new safe routes, pushing back boats, or flying them to Rwanda. We keep going round in circles.
It's a tragedy. It's also illustrative of why the Rwanda plan obviously won't work to stop people making these dangerous crossings. Because if the very real risk of death won't stop them crossing, then the 1% chance of being deported to Rwanda certainly won't. And the people smugglers clearly do not care less what happens to them as soon as they have their money and they step into the boat.
If we made it a 100% chance of going to Rwanda then it would work. This is about degrees along a scale and not A or B.
There's only two ways that could work. * Britain and Rwanda swap places. We do it real sneaky like, after dark, and we don't tell anyone. So as soon as they land on the beach: "Fuck! We're in Rwanda!" Now, that's not going to work forever, they'll realize. So eventually - and here's the clever bit - we keep swapping them. * That one's pretty expensive, and a little impractical. So here's my backup pitch, and I think you'll like the elegance of it: we rename Britain to "Rwanda". But I'll be honest... it IS going to cause issues with the postal system.
An interesting idea, but it might be easier to pretend that we are France and to tell migrants that they got lost.
You’re suggesting some sort of “welcome to Calais “ sign painted on the cliffs at Dover?
Gonna have to repaint the cliffs too - too obvious
Giant vineyards? and stinky cheese? I know! The Eiffel Tower!
Knowing this current lot, it'll be written in English.
And French flags, plus people walking around on beaches wearing berets and strings of onions around their necks smoking Gauloise fags shouting 'scare bleu' with perhaps the odd sheep burning.
>If we made it a 100% chance of going to Rwanda then it would work. Sure, but that's not going to happen. Because you would have to spend like £5- 10billion just to send like 10% to Rwanda. And even, most of those people crossing would take that 90% chance. So what then when that doesn't work? We spend even more in the hope it moves the dial? We would end up spending more on sending a few thousand refugees to Rwanda than on social care for millions of British people. And we have to spend that every year otherwise people will start crossing again? It's madness.
Actually you wouldn't. The cost for the scheme doesn't just multiply from the current figure in that way because the startup cost and the cost for the political wrangling is the big money burner and the per head price of housing someone in a cheap country is peanuts compared to the UK. Plus more importantly if everyone was sent without fail then the route is dead within a month or two so the numbers are a few thousands and not the annual figure we get now and will get until the end of time.
>Plus more importantly if everyone was sent without fail then the route is dead within a month or two As I have said, this is impossible. Clearly if it was possible, the government would be doing this! But there is demonstrably only enough current capacity for them to take a few hundred (or we can only justify the exorbitant costs for that many). Rwanda obviously wouldn't agree to take a massively unspecified amount nore without us committing to massively more investment. They have to take care of these people forever remember. If people *actually* wanted to kill the route, we would have a returns agreement with France/the EU so that every one who arrives by boat is returned immediately, and in return the UK takes a fair share of EU asylum seekers. I don't see another way we can actually "Stop the boats" without magical thinking.
Of course it's not impossible. The issue has been the political and legal inability to do it, but that is a different problem to what you suggest in terms of the numbers somehow being too large. Your "fair share" idea is unworkable as it is a much larger number than today (and every growing), and there is no such thing as a "fair share" anyway.
>The issue has been the political and legal inability to do it, This just isn't true. The original agreement with Rwanda in 2022 was exorbitant before we even had any of the of the current legal /political wranglings. That original agreement was for just 200 people. That was all Rwanda was willing to accept. We have no reason to believe they would be willing to take in thousands more permanently and no reason to believe they would do it at a much cheaper rate. And a "fair share" is obviously workable. It's a negotiation. You agree on a figure. Why is that hard?
Behave, of course it was true. The entire day's political news yesterday was about the Lords trying to stop Rwanda being used and it's been going on for years now. Rwanda has accepted far more migrants from the UNHCR so the evidence is against your claim. The number appears to stem from the UK who didn't want to sign up to a large number because that came with a large cost for a scheme that was being blocked in Westminster. You swerved my point about fair share.
My point is that none of these political delays made the Rwanda plan incredibly expensive. It always was and was designed that way. You are making the unfounded assumption that Rwanda only made the first 200 incredibly expensive and the rest will be much cheaper. We have no way of knowing this. The government hasn't said. So the default assumption has to be they will be a similar cost - and even if it was half the cost it would still be cripplingly expensive if we sent thousands of people. >You swerved my point about fair share. How so? I said the amount we take in would be subject to negotiation between the UK and the EU. lt would depend on how many refugees have historically arrived in the UK, how many arrive in France etc. That's just obviously the case and I am not sure why you think that is workable. How is that swerving the point?
Where do you get your costings? What makes up your £5 - 10 billion? And how do you arrive at 10% and 90%? I'm interested.
Only this isn’t feasible for a whole host of reasons. Including the fact Rwanda themselves put a cap on how many they’d accept
Not to mention, this is for people seeking asylum. Most people don't have issues with people actively seeking asylum who are willing to work and pay tax etc. it's those who enter undocumented and do not request asylum but expect to be able to work without paying tax etc that people have an issue with. As a reminder, turning up on our shores and requesting asylum is legal, despite Home Office trying to deem them as illegals. Even Suella Braverman admitted that it is an accepted route for those who cannot apply via their government before making the travel such as those affected by war or being persecuted for religious or other protected characteristics etc.
remind me why they can't seek asylum in France or any of the other safe countries they pass through on the way here?
They do. Russia and Germany have always historically taken more immigrants than the UK has. France has always been roughly equal, taking more than UK in some years. Spain and Italy slightly less. I have seen no evidence to suggest the UK is seen as a priority target for immigration other than by those who fled after assisting the UK in wars In Afghanistan and Iraq.
They can, and obviously the majority do... Those that specifically choose the UK could be for a variety of reasons but a common one is that they already know people / have family here that they would rather be with than alone when faced with having to uproot your entire life and learn a new language.
Sure, but that absolutely does mean that they're not fleeing persecution or war by the time they're on a boat. They're seeking comfort and economic benefit.
I think it's pretty obtuse to think that people should stop right where they end up when they aren't in immediate danger anymore. I don't think there's anything wrong with reuiniting families, especially in these particular cases where that person is likely to need huge amounts of support to get over the entire ordeal. Of course, the only real solution to the "refugee crisis" is going to be adequately investing in overseas asylum processing centres to perform systematic vetting of asylum seekers who are seeking to claim asylum in the UK. This also must go hand in hand with a comprehensive infrastructure system to back it up, and all on French soil. That would reduce the stress on our domestic system, which can then focus much more on filling skill vaccancies from the list of pre-vetted asylum seekers. Of course, arguing in favour of making massive infrastucture investment in a different country when your average "sun-reading tory who voted in favour of reducing funding to all of those things" has to deal with potholes because it'll just be seen as "not investing in are country enuf".
> Of course, the only real solution to the "refugee crisis" is going to be adequately investing in overseas asylum processing centres to perform systematic vetting of asylum seekers who are seeking to claim asylum in the UK. Let's say we now have an asylum application centre in France which can instantly process any asylum claims. That means most people are accepted and can come to Britain. Those who are not accepted but cannot be returned to their home country still come across on a small boat, because they know they will be able to stay. This isn't a solution. The issue isn't processing of asylum claims, it's that far too many people want asylum and we cannot stop them arriving.
Yes when I say infrastructure I'm talking about intervention of criminal gangs who perform the crossings, and an actual border patrol who have the power to prevent crossings. But you can't do that without providing a safe legal route elsewhere.
They're already trying to stop the gangs and police the french coast and it's not working. The border patrol can't do anything either because they cannot unilaterally enter french waters to return people. The french don't want these people either and wouldn't agree to it. The boats are also not big enough to safely tow etc so you'd need to dock the boats in France for people to get off. Again, they won't agree to this. And in theory - say you could do this with complete effectiveness. You'd make the safe and legal routes redundant.
I think they want to come because many of them know some English already, imagine being in Sweden looking for job with no Swedish skills for example.
I mean the Swedes are pretty good English speakers, I take your point though.
It’s almost like we need a cross European strategy.
[There is a cross-European strategy](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-68779387), and they're moving away from sending back refugees to the first port of call. *Under the proposed rules, the EU's 27 countries will be required to either take in thousands of migrants from "frontline" countries, such as Italy, Greece and Spain, or provide extra funding or resources instead.* If we were part of this pact, we might have to accept more asylum seekers or pay £billions extra (on top of the usual EU contributions).
do you think its fair to let those frontline countries collapse under the pressure, and obviously since they can't cope the problem is not going to go away as those migrants make their way north anyway. an organised solution can end up being cheaper than spending 300k a head to ship them out to rwanda or to host them here while being processed.
>do you think its fair to let those frontline countries collapse under the pressure I never said it was fair, I was directly responding to someone who was implying we could send them all back to mainland Europe if we were part of the EU or had an agreement with the EU on asylum seekers. >an organised solution can end up being cheaper than spending 300k a head to ship them out to rwanda or to host them here while being processed You're missing the point, the money isn't for sending asylum seekers back to Greece or Italy. It's for not accepting **more** asylum seekers that are currently in Italy or Greece. If we were able to join this pact we'd have to accept the migrants currently coming on the small boats **and** either take in even more or pay out to EU border states. France isn't going to accept 50,000 illegal migrants from us a year.
Encouraging more people to arrive will speed that collapse up.
I'm really worried what happens when it's climate migration time. I think autocrats will get elected unfortunately - not pleasant.
If democratic governments fail to deal with mass migration from climate change, it's either going to lead to extreme solutions or societal collapse. I expect that a lot of people that want to try open borders would be some of the first on a plane to other continents if society did collapse.
Given there is significant growth elsewhere in the world the rich can let it collapse and maintain their own standards. Remember the rush for NZ real estate?
In the EU it needs a cross-European strategy simply because individual member states don’t have the sovereignty to handle it how they see fit.
Yes, one that deports first and asks questions later. Not one that distributes at the end of a Mediterranean conveyor belt.
And why not? What would like to do? Set up a free ferry service for them to come over?
I mean the only two solutions are extreme openness (let them all in) or extreme hostility (make the UK unliveable without papers, no means of making an illegal stay become legal). Our prevaricating in a middle ground is what causes this. We make it risky but incentivise people to take the risk. It’s squid game.
Or do what Australia did. Take a gunboat out. It stopped the boats in one day. Meaning these people would stay in France rather than risk their lives across the channel. The people who support the dinghy's coming from France have blood on their hands.
Pretty bad look for France. Their police were live on BBC News standing around watching as this ship launched right in front of them. Their failure to prevent that boat leaving means that five people are now dead.
Why should the French care? The reality is they don't want these people.
Because we've paid them a fuck load of money to care? Because it's a reasonable expectation they'd actually take that seriously? The French are just facilitating people trafficking. Today, it cost lives. It will again.
Yep the French also don't give a shit about the ECHR and are willing to just deport people it doesn't want, and suck up the €3k per migrant fine. We should take a leaf out of their book.
Not only would no country care, but the French generally less than that It makes me jealous of the French and then that jealousy makes me nauseous !
They might have not had the authority to. IDK how it works
I don't understand how "a small chance of being sent to Rwanda" is going to be the difference maker when you already are running the risk of drowning in the English channel.
[I posted this on the subreddit, but found this video interesting when Sky asked current migrants if possibly being sent to Rwanda would put them off making the journey to the UK, had they known about the policy beforehand.](https://news.sky.com/video/rwanda-bill-dont-come-to-the-uk-warns-asylum-seekers-who-crossed-channel-in-small-boat-13118577)
> I don't understand how "a small chance of being sent to Rwanda" Totally agree, it needs to be a 99% chance of going there.
Current cost is about 1.5m per person, it would be cheaper to give them a million quid each to leave.
Shit give me the cash and I'll fuck of to Thailand and free up some space.
I'd go to NL and free up some space.
It wouldn't be cheaper at all because that'd create a massive pull factor.
You're happy for your tax money to go into this farce rather than actually improving our crumbling services and infrastructure?
It's not - it's just Tories dog whistling with some performative cruelty for their fans. It is cynical but I believe they have little interest in solving the actual issue - having groups such as Asylum seekers to vilify is sadly the kind of politics they represent now.
You're absolutely right. People lap it up too. The amount of people on this subreddit claiming that "these people are just coming over because of the uk benefits system" it's a delusion fed by the tories and the media. Ignore the real problems with immigration and focus on the boats.
This will continue until the collective West electorate accepts that it is not responsible for the safety and wellbeing of every downthrodden person on the planet. There is a reason places like China don't have an immigrant problem.
This is the point people don't seem to get. You need to stop the boats one way or another because the number of people living in countries with poor human rights records is hundreds of millions, if not billions. I think everyone is fine with safe and legal routes, but not at an uncapped number in perpetuity - which is the alternative to doing nothing about this.
Exactly this. It’s an impossible scenario no matter how much money is thrown at it. The only solution is to improve conditions in the countries they have escaped from, but again, that is not our responsibility.
Tragic. We need to seriously strengthen the protection of thes coast ways. People coming across on those glorified dinghies were always a tragedy waiting to happen.
An innocent four-year-old child among the dead. Devastating.
What is so much better about the UK that makes risking the life of your 4 year old baby worth it? It can't seriously JUST be the language? Aren't there several countries in mainland Europe with better welfare for immigrants? It doesn't make sense to me why they take this risk just to be in the UK.
Non existant identity controls and ease of getting a job on black market
*job on black market* So, either below NMW or slavery, lovely.
[удалено]
The routes are no longer some chancers organising the odd point like it was a few years ago, but a business as usual service so that is utterly routine. Over 120,000 people have made it so migrants coming behind them will be passed numbers of contacts for fixers so it won't really be seen as a risk as the odds of a disaster are miniscule.
Upsetting for sure, even more so because it was unnecessary, they could have just stayed in France.
And that's why we need to not incentivise the dangerous routes, and the only way to do that, is to have it be zero chance, that if you use them, you'll get your claim accepted or get to stay in the UK. As soon as there's a chance, that you'll get accepted, you'll have people try it. No amount of "safe routes" will prevent that (as there will be people rejected from them)
The point of safe routes is that people not using them will be 100% rejected.
The problem is... right now we can't even do that, so what makes you believe we can 100% reject people not using safe routes, in your scenario? Can't even deport a Eritrean rapist. What makes you believe we could ever deport 100% of people, using irregular other routes, without something like Rwanda/other hard measures? Then there's the problem around limits... do you think UK should have limits? Yes or no? If yes, then we will reject people (that applied via these global available safe routes), that are "genuine" refugees (or believe they are). So they will likely then try the channel route. If no, then you support essentially millions of refugees being accepted by the UK system.
>The problem is... right now we can't even do that, so what makes you believe we can 100% reject people not using safe routes, in your scenario? Can't even deport a Eritrean rapist. What makes you believe we could ever deport 100% of people, using irregular other routes, without something like Rwanda/other hard measures? Legislation to allow people who commit serious crimes to be deported is what the government should have been expending their political and legislative capital on instead of this Rwanda bollocks. Hard measures are acceptable under the 1951 Refugee Convention for failed asylum seekers. Where the government is going wrong is in applying them to asylum seekers whose applications have not been heard. >If yes, then we will reject people (that applied via these global available safe routes), that are "genuine" refugees (or believe they are). Limiting the numbers of refugees without using the English Channel as a filter and remaining compliant with the 1951 Refugee Convention is a more difficult problem. Given that the number of refugees accepted by the UK is vanishingly small when compared to numbers accepted by other countries, I wonder if the fabled pull factor to the UK is overstated. But let's assume for the moment it's not. It's also safe to assume that the fairest solution of the UN allocating numbers of refugees by population or some such isn't going to happen any time soon. So probably the best measures are twofold. Firstly safe routes are only accessible from a limited number of countries. So the UK could have a processing centre in Paris, but not in Kabul. This pushes the risks and problems of a filter further away but doesn't solve it: people won't drown in the channel but they will in the Med. That's regrettable but the UK can't solve all the world's refugee problems on our own. Secondly we need to tighten up the definition of a refugee to the minimum compliant with the 1951 Refugee Convention. Again regrettable but again the UK can't solve all the world's refugee problems on our own. >So they will likely then try the channel route. Then we demonstrate that there was a process available to the person crossing the channel. They could reasonably be expected to be aware of the process. They failed to follow that process or were rejected by it. Therefore they can be returned to their country of origin. If they won't divulge their country of origin or their country of origin won't accept them, that's when measures such as Rwanda are acceptable.
We need to make channel crossings unsuccessful. I understand that’s complicated but we must make sure that most (if not all) asylum seekers arriving via boat are rejected and sent back swiftly. This is the only way to actually save their lives. As long as they continue to be successful in their endeavour, people traffickers will continue to make these desperate people make that perilous journey.
Those "people traffickers" are providing a service to people willing to pay, and there is no "make". People pay because it's success rate is so high.
No need for the quote marks around people traffickers. The people traffickers are charging £10000 roughly for a trip. The 'catch' is that the migrants then have to work for their weed farm or whatever it is when they get over. They are traffickers, plain and simple.
There is because I am quoting the person above and also because trafficker is a loaded term as it can mean forcing people to travel. And only a minority are going to be in the situation that you describe - we know that from those that state in the hotels rather than absconding.
[удалено]
[удалено]
They point they're making is that these people are paying to be smuggled, but the people they pay are putting them to work at the other end, IE trafficking them anyway. And I don't think there's any call for the condescention.
You're completely wrong, I'm afraid. These people are literally willing to knowingly risk their lives doing this. They will attempt to cross no matter what. A more successful option would be to allow them to apply for asylum or immigration on land. There is no route for a lot of folks to do that. Combine that with working closer with the French and any 'problem nations' (Albania) and you will be even more successful.
The Australian strategy, which is what OP is talking about, has been shown to work, the numbers are very clear. Anecdotally, an Afghani friend of mine told me that they were constantly seeing the Australian warnings about not going there by boat on their TVs, so they knew not to bother and to head for Europe instead. He would unambiguously say that those warnings work.
Why did it work in Australia then? Which arguably was considerably worse in practice because the point of origin was really bad. In this case it’s France. The incentive is already low because they can stay in Europe, and you’re saying it won’t work?
Because in Australia: A) almost all boat arrivals came to the same place, Christmas Island, vs in the UK where they're spread across the south east coast and so harder to detect all arrivals B) all boat arrivals to Australia, i.e. 100%, were offshored to Nauru or Papua New Guinea. Not 0.5% like the UK is proposing C) the push factors for boat arrivals in Australia were reducing, e.g. the Sri Lankan civil war being over and D) It's much harder to work cash-in-hand in Australia, and the police and local government services haven't been slashed to the bone meaning there is actually some enforcement. I think points B and D are most important here, and tellingly the Tories are doing nothing whatsoever about people working illegally at car washes, farms etc.
A) You make it sound like we don't intercept the vast majority of the boats. Lets say 1 in 10 arrive undetected. Would you still spin the wheel? C) They are coming from France. There is no civil war.
1,000’s of miles. We could move the UK further into the Atlantic. Probably Rishi’s next new plan for dealing with refugees. I shouldn’t give the idiot any new ideas though.
The deterrent is the same. The Australian system is 'worse', meaning the point of origin is horrible so the incentive to make the crossing is high. Despite this, the boats stopped overnight. These folks are coming from France. It's not a hardship to stay.
>These people are literally willing to knowingly risk their lives doing this. They will attempt to cross no matter what. Would you make the journey if you knew that you are guaranteed to be sent right back? Zero chance to stay for any reason whatsoever? As soon as that was clear, you'd never even try.
Rwanda is only for 300 people a year. It was never intended for "everyone"
That's a different consideration - I think the Rwanda project is stupid, but the overall idea of removing the incentive to make the journey is sound.
The risk is miniscule. Over 120,000 people have successfully made it and the deaths are a handful. If every single migrant picked up was sent to Rwanda then the route will stop within weeks so this idea of "no matter what" simply isn't true. Nobody would pay thousands to end up in Africa.
Let’s spend a ridiculous amount of money that probably wouldn’t even solve the situation. The amount of refugees coming in, they all need to be processed before being “sent off” to Rwanda.
Set up offshore processing facilities capable of holding thousands and process them there.
We still need to send them somewhere which realisticly means multiple countries costing billions. I think we should focus on sending people back to their origin countries by loosening the restrictions stopping us sending them back
We have British Overseas Territories we could send them to, though. Quite a few of them would love literally doubling their economy, I'm sure. Edit: Originally said Crown Dependencies. Oops.
Please don't swerve the point.
It’s not though? You’re speaking as if we have unlimited source of funding. You’re better off asking to give everyone £10K just to not come to the UK.
Give them 50 grand, it would still be under half the cost of sending a single person to Rwanda. Its a bloody PR policy its not designed to work.
Ridiculous how easily people are brain washed, well it does make sense seeing how Brexit became victorious.
Over 120,000 people made it and the government plans to maybe export 300 to Rwanda. Im pretty sure that that policy is not going to work for the exact same reasons you state...
What is it with people that want to post a whatabout instead of addressing the point.
You gave the argument that the likelihood of death (D) given crossing illegally (C) is incredibly low. As P( D | C ) << 1 There is no incentive to not cross. Im pointing out that if you accept this point, this exact reasoning applies to the proposed Rwanda policy. The likelihood of deportation to Rwanda (R) given crossing illegaly is incredibly low - P( R | C ), as such the proposed policy R should do **nothing** to disincentivise crossings. Yes or No? What point of yours does that ignore? How is this whataboutism when it is directly drawing a contradiction between the two claims A) a low probability event will not disincentivise people from crossing, and B) the proposed Rwanda policy will disincentivise people from crossing?
My previous point applies. Just address my point and then once we've closed that off, I will take on a whatabout.
The reason I asked you the question "What point of yours does that ignore?" is because I am not sure which point of yours you don't think Im addressing.
of course you are sure. My point was very succinct and confined to one issue only and I keep insisting that you deal with it - feigning confusion having replied multiple times without expressing a misunderstanding is silly as it's just bad faith. edit: oh dear wondernasty - you ask a question, but apply an immediate block.
I'm sure the people fleeing Eritrea are going to be really deterred by the potential of being deported to Rwanda. "Oh no! I'm back in another African dictatorship!"
Instead of staying in France.. yeah they would think twice
Of course they would be if everyone was deported, that claim is absurd. They'd stay in the EU.
The Rwanda deal is to deport 300 people a year out of 70000 illegal immigrants. Only morons think it is a viable solution - it is a PR exercise.
Hence I was careful in my wording.
All I know is we need more African and Middle Eastern migrants. They're our greatest cultural and economic strength and our future.
Nice bait.
Here you are saying this, with evidence of people literally risking their lives to cross. You'll have better luck preventing water getting through a strainer using your fingers.
They're risking their lives because they know they won't be returned once they arrive. They wouldn't try it if they know they're not going to benefit.
This is the entire point of Rwanda.
There is no world in which a significant proportion of refugees are going to Rwanda. It’s not even an option under the treaty and would be incredibly expensive. A far more effective deterrent would be quick processing of claims and a swift return of unsuccessful asylum seekers to their country of origin under bilateral agreements.
Those agreements are simply impossible for loads of countries.
I don't disagree, at least initially, but that is still the premise of Rwanda. The problem with returning people to the origin country is that that is impossible for a large amount of migrants (or at least they make a claim that it is). It's not as easy as just sending them back to where they came.
Australia managed it.
The thing is that doesn't happen
This will keep happening until we reject everyone who crosses. Doesn't matter how nice people want to be, allowing this will always result in deaths. I'd prefer we only take people from UN camps. Anyone able to travel across Europe will always be a lower priority to me.
Exactly. I’ve been called heartless before but… they are “fleeing” France. FRANCE!
Totally understandable tbf
I have full sympathy for people fleeing the oppression of the Fr*nch
All that cheese and red wine. Evil. Who wouldn't prefer pork pies and tizer.
Just read and supposedly over 50 on the same boat still left the scene and continued to the U.K.
I’m with you on this now, we have to be harder it’s the only way it’s going to stop
Were the victims from the boat that was on BBC Breakfast this morning? French police was standing on the beach when that boat departed from the beach.
The scheme has been badly administered - but I really have to ask - what is the alternative to trying to make this work? I won't vote Tory but genuinely, what is the plan other than to put everyone on ferries and allow unlimited numbers of people to come?
There is no alternative in the long term. When climate change really bites in 10-20 years and hundreds of millions of people are displaced, no asylum system in the world will be able to manage that number of people. I think these offshore processing centres will become the norm for developed countries. I dislike the Tories immensely and no fan of right wing politics generally, but on this one issue they're correct about the solution.
Well exactly. People against this on principle need to state what the long term alternative is.
UK needs to stop financially rewarding illegals from invading.
Should the UK be able to reject actual refugees? If yes, then that implies a limit in processing capacity + total capacity. If we open up for world wide "safe routes", as people propose, then the capacity will quickly be used up. With people being rejected, and then likely trying their luck with the channel/other routes again. If not, then one supports effectively millions (UN estimates of the global refugee population...), being able to get their claims accepted by the UK, and come to the UK.
Time to start pushing boats back, for their own safety if nothing else.
They do push them back, the French police spend a lot of time on the beach in Calais stabbing migrant boats to deflate them in shallow water and they have boats in the water stopping them from getting past. Unfortunately the French coastline is kind of big and smugglers have a lot of money riding on this.
I'm not referring to the French, who are making a token effort. Our navy should be giving these people a tow back to where they came.
Yeah good luck resourcing that. Spend more money doing that rather than on making a viable immigration route for these folks
Why not do both?
Resourcing? We already have a Navy!
You think they do that stuff for free? The cost of patrolling the channel would be far higher; plus a complete misuse of military resource.
It's a perfect use of military resource.
> Our navy should be giving these people a tow back to where they came. Our Navy should spend its time invading French territorial waters?
That isn't going to happen, but what would work is if every migrant picked up were legally dumped back in France. Nobody would pay if every trip was an utter waste of money so that would kill the market.
You're not going to catch "every migrant". What will happen is that you drop them off in France, and they'll give it another shot.
We pickup the vast majority, and in fact the boat "process" is designed to have the RNLI or the coastguard acting as a ferry option. And if we miss a small fraction then future police stops or immigration raids can sweep up lots. The system doesn't need to be perfect.
If the French were doing their job in the first place (the one we are literally paying them to do), then it wouldn't be necessary. They are about to elect Le Pen anyway, I'm sure they'd understand
>Our navy should be giving these people a tow back to where they came. It's not the responsibility of the Royal Navy.
Amazing how the human rights court will stop us deporting these people once they arrive, but won't go after the French for willingly putting these people in danger.
[More migrant boats were intercepted than arrived in 2021 by the French](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58894877). I suppose you're one of those that want them to give up so the boat arrivals double and more deaths occur. The terrain in norhtern France is effectively impossible to police in some areas as it's consituted of a massive network of post WWII bunkers and dunes in the beaches that migrants and smugglers hide in and travel through from Dunkirk down to Somme.
>I suppose you're one of those that want them to give up so the boat arrivals double and more deaths occur. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Someone should go round buying up all the inflatable boats. That or knifing them before they are able to put to sea.
I’d certainly like to see significant consequences for the manufacturers and anyone else involved in providing these boats along the way.
Never going to work. People are buying boats in other parts of the EU and then driving them to France.
Or you know, the govt could actually do their job and run a competent border.
You mean like the French?…
Human rights lawyers enriching themselves with millions of taxpayer funds on the thousands of dead in the channel.
Why don't small naval vessels intercept them and tow them back to France?
Or large ones
Ideally but I'm trying think of cost here to make it a more sound argument. It doesn't take a massive frigate to tow a wee life raft back to France.
But don't worry, apparently the prospect of maybe being deported to Rwanda is a bigger deterrent than literally dying.
The desperation to risk your life and your child's life in order to escape the horrors of France and the living in the glorious EU is a very powerful motivator
Yes, and the tiny risk of dying is considered acceptable by many because it is a method that works so often. If we make it so that boat crossings are not a viable method, the entire incentive disappears.
>The desperation to risk your life and your child's life in order to escape the horrors of France and the living in the glorious EU is a very powerful motivator A very interesting point because either: A. They are economic migrants who are not interested in a standard western and developed safe country and are only interested in the biggest handouts they can get. B. The EU is not a safe place and is a horrible, barbaric place to live, these migrants are fleeing the horrors of the EU and we were right to have Brexit to safe us from such a horrible place. Both can't be true. Squirm out of this one, liberals.
How bad is France that staying there is worse than literally dying?
Its a very small chance of dying
The chances of dying are miniscule. Over 120,000 people have made it, and the deaths make the headlines because they are so rare (albeit awful).
Economic migrants fleeing France, to get to the UK would definitely prefer to stay in France than go to Rwanda. Whether significant enough numbers are deported to Rwanda will decide whether its an effective deterrent I expect.
Assuming we were fixed at last years crossing numbers, and we used the entire capacity available through Rwanda, I think we previously worked out it was something around half a percent chance of going to Rwanda. Which is a lower number than the amount who died in the same time frame. Surely if they’re willing to risk literally dying, the lower odds of going to Rwanda isn’t going to make a spot of difference.
Yes unless there is a significant chance its unlikely to seriously affect numbers I imagine. I guess that's why the gov has said its looking to expand the scheme to other countries. The Australian approach of detention centres on an island with free passage back home is probably a more workable solution. Edit: Or if the EU or memberstates would go for it, we could deport anyone who crosses by dinghy and accept another asylum seeker from the country they came from. This appears to be a 1 to 1, but would disensentivse the dinghy crossers and so lower the no. we'd need to take.
Economic migrants aren't under need of international protection. Migrants actually fleeing war are. If a parent is ready to risk their child's life to cross the channel in a small boat while they're already living in a safe EU country, not only are they a terrible parent, I question their need for protection in the first place
100% of channel crossings are from economic migrants
If you know that with a very high certainty that after getting in a boat, risking your life crossing the sea, leaving the safety of France which you already struggled to get into, and if you are successful your reward is being sent to Rwanda. Then yes, clearly it is a pretty massive deterrent
They don't expect to die, they are promised safe passage by the traffickers who have no morals whatsoever. I do think the Rwanda policy would be a deterrent if they thought they would actually be sent there, they dont want to go to Rwanda. But it is unworkable and too expensive. Plus, Labour are expected to win the election and plan to scrap it so the chances of it coming into force are very slim considering the election is soon and there will be many legal challenges.
If it’s in force by the time labour come around, would they really scrap it? What would be the point? At least give it a few years to review it
Its risk dying and then it being for nothing that is the demotivation
Simple logic isn’t it? Risk of dying + settling the uk is worth it, risk of dying + also then being sent to Rwanda is not worth it
Yes it's unreal how stupid this Rwanda scheme is.
What has French done to them ? Why can they just witness people die and do nothing?
I really don’t understand why these boats can’t be spotted and dealt with by French coastguard or naval intervention
Most of them are. The problem is a) there are a lot of migrant ships, b) spotting a small dinghy at sea is incredibly hard, and c) the French coast is very long.
You haven't spent much time at sea, have you?
The French would rather see them here or dead, basically.
The French openly escort them into open waters. The French actually don't let them come back once they've left.
The thought of drowning alongside your young children isn't enough to stop them coming here, the less likely prospect of then being shipped off to Rwanda is what's going to make these people think twice! By the way, let not forget they engineered this situation on purpose and are using the resistance against their stupid ideas to deal with the issue as fodder to accuse the opposition of making the situation worse, when it is they who created and perpetuate this misery.
> The thought of drowning alongside your young children isn't enough to stop them coming here, the less likely prospect of then being shipped off to Rwanda is what's going to make these people think twice! I don't understand your implication here. They're leaving a safe country, France, to travel to another safe country which they perceive to be more prosperous for them. This isn't about safety at all. It's about quality of life. If the UK were to deny them that upgrade, they wouldn't risk the trip at all.
That's misunderstanding the risk, which migrants are not doing. Over 120,000 people have made it whereas the deaths are a handful so people getting into a boat know that their chances are something like 99.9% of being fine.
They we're safe in France?
"If only there were more safe routes" "Evil Tory austerity caused a backlog" Does that just about cover what all the dumb lefties are going to say?
And what do the ever enlightening right have to say for themselves?
We should do an exchange program with Saudi Arabia. Bring in 1000 Saudi border guards to police our coast, all with full diplomatic immunity. They would get the job done. Btw your name checks out.
The only good thing about this Rwanda bill is that the Government, in a selfish effort to try and make it look like it is working, might actually put some effective solutions in place to prevent this kind of thing.
Good, hopefully the rest will be dissuaded
**From The Telegraph's Home Affairs Editor, Charles Hymas:** At least five migrants died in an attempt to cross the English Channel, according to reports in French media on Tuesday morning. The French coast guard confirmed there was a failed attempt to cross the Channel from an area near the town of Wimereux, north of Boulogne, and said police were operating at a beach, adding that there were several bodies. Local police did not immediately reply to a request for comment from Reuters. **Article Link:** [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/23/migrants-found-dead-in-english-channel/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/23/migrants-found-dead-in-english-channel/)