Farage highlighting illegal migration chaos

2u2me

end of the road wrote: »

or in actual reality, a commercial decision was made to remove the show so as to not cause a loss in advertising.

All hail our commercial overlords.

splashuum

Power video posted by Farage today. https://www.facebook.com/nigelfarageofficial/videos/1514743672030799/

The French have assisted the migrant boats in bringing them to UK waters.
80% of the migrants are males between 18-26.
The illegals are staying in a 4 star hotels ie Bromsdale Hilton Spa.
The UK are housing 48,000 illegals this way which will cost a minimum £4bn over the next 10 years.
The hotels are closed to the public and are not unbookable for the entire year.
Locals have stated they are afraid to go out in the area due to mass loitering and persistent wolf whistling.

creeper1

https://youtu.be/4VvzKM9q95w

Unbelievable! When you consider how risky and the very real risk of death presented by crossing from Calais to Dover in a dinghy you would have thought the British would do as the Australians did and process them offshore making sure to reduce insensitives as much as possible.

This is irresponsible in the extreme. People WILL die making this crossing because successful arrivals are being put up in 4 star hotels.

Why isn’t this being reported more widely?

Peregrinus

creeper1 wrote: »

https://youtu.be/4VvzKM9q95w

Unbelievable! When you consider how risky and the very real risk of death presented by crossing from Calais to Dover in a dinghy you would have thought the British would do as the Australians did and process them offshore making sure to reduce insensitives as much as possible.

This is irresponsible in the extreme. People WILL die making this crossing because successful arrivals are being put up in 4 star hotels.

Why isn’t this being reported more widely?

Possibly because it's not true?

Kidchameleon

Peregrinus wrote: »

Possibly because it's not true?

2u2me

There was another thread about it.

Apparently Farage is a bigot for reporting on this; but when other media do it it's not.

Peregrinus

I'm not going to watch a Farage video - I have shoelaces to wash, which is much more important - unless you tell that the video explicitly and unambiguously says that people are motivated to cross the English channel because, if successful, they will be put up in four-star hotels.

Does it say that?

And a second question. The headline on your screencap refers to "illegal migrants". Does the video in fact deal with illegal migrants, or does it deal with asylum seekers (who are, of course, acting lawfully in coming to the UK to seek asylum) but demonise them falsely as "illegal migrants" for Farage's political purposes?

I ask this because, if the answer to the latter question is that the vidoe frames asylum seekers as illegal migrants, then it's clearly not honest or reliable and so not a credible source to back up the assertions made in the OP. In which case, again, I'm, not watching it. But I will look at any evidence presented that might be credible.

Chips Lovell

“Nigel Farage Investigates” sounds like a bad ITV crime drama.

Still waters

If they are asylum seekers why are they risking their lives crossing the channel when France is a safe country to claim asylum, would it be more accurate to call them economic migrants instead

Peregrinus

Still waters wrote: »

If they are asylum seekers why are they risking their lives crossing the channel when France is a safe country to claim asylum, would it be more accurate to call them economic migrants instead

You think people are more likely to risk their lives for economic advantage than to seek safe asylum from persecution?

I do not know why they want to risk their lives to seek asylum in the UK; if you want to know you should ask them, not me and certainly not Nigel Farage. I seriously doubt that the answer will be because of an irresistible impulse to find four-star accommodation, as claimed in the OP.

biko

Peregrinus wrote: »

Possibly because it's not true?

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not going to watch a Farage video

So that is how you do it.

Don't watch video.
Claim it's not happening.
Partake in debate with zero information, only feelings.

Rodney Bathgate

Still waters wrote: »

If they are asylum seekers why are they risking their lives crossing the channel when France is a safe country to claim asylum, would it be more accurate to call them economic migrants instead

Bogus asylum seekers would be more apt.

Dublinandy3

Peregrinus wrote: »

You think people are more likely to risk their lives for economic advantage than to seek safe asylum from persecution?

I do not know why they want to risk their lives to seek asylum in the UK; if you want to know you should ask them, not me and certainly not Nigel Farage. I seriously doubt that the answer will be because of an irresistible impulse to find four-star accommodation, as claimed in the OP.

I guess it's not needed for us to think if it happens as it happens on a regular basis. That's why camps like this (link below) still exist. Usually, they pass through one or several european countries if they decide they want to get to the UK. I'm not an expert but it seems to be Italy, germany and the UK they aim for.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/calais-refugee-camp-eviction-migrant-channel-crossing-a9613256.html

Even the charities are calling them migrants, not asylum seekers when trying to get from northern France to the UK:

https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/uk-news/calais-refugees-risk-crossing-police-evictions-coronavirus-camps-france-a9506021.html

This is not a post for or against what they do, simply to answer your question if they're likely to risk their lives for an economic advantage, the answer seems to be, yes, they are.

biko

These migrants are obliged by the Dublin Regulation to remain in France.

Peregrinus

biko wrote: »

These migrants are obliged by the Dublin Regulation to remain in France.

Where does the Dublin Regulation say that? Link, please, to the provision that says that.

If you can't provide a link to the provision saying that, then say why you think the regulation says that.

Still waters

Peregrinus wrote: »

You think people are more likely to risk their lives for economic advantage than to seek safe asylum from persecution?

I do not know why they want to risk their lives to seek asylum in the UK; if you want to know you should ask them, not me and certainly not Nigel Farage. I seriously doubt that the answer will be because of an irresistible impulse to find four-star accommodation, as claimed in the OP.

Easy there princess, i merely posed the question, you need to reply with facts and leave you're very obvious emotions for twitter and Facebook

biko

Peregrinus wrote: »

Where does the Dublin Regulation say that? Link, please, to the provision that says that.

To avoid abuses, European law, the Dublin Regulation, requires that asylum seekers have their asylum claim registered in the first country they arrive in, and that the decision of the first EU country they apply in, is the final decision in all EU countries.

They must apply for asylum in France, or even an earlier country if they came overland.
If France do not accept their application then UK will not either and they are illegally crossing borders.

https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/1857/the-dublin-regulation-explained

The purpose of the regulation is to determine which country is responsible for processing an asylum seeker’s application. Usually, this is the first EU member state that the migrants set their foot on.

Peregrinus

Still waters wrote: »

Easy there princess, i merely posed the question, you need to reply with facts and leave you're very obvious emotions for twitter and Facebook

If you want the facts on this, why are you asking me what their reasons are? Surely you should be asking them?

I didn't ready your question as a request for information; I read it as making a rhetorical point. If that was a misreading of your intention, I apologise.

The only person in this thread who has asserted a positive reason for the asylum-seekers crossing the channel is the OP, who asserts that they do it because they will be accommodated in four-star hotels if they do. That seems to me very implausible. Kidchameleon seems to suggest that the Farage video supports the OP's claim, but - despite my earlier invitation - nobody else is willing to say that it does.

lawrencesummers

I’m fascinated by the amount of different terms used to describe someone who thinks taking to the English Channel in an overcrowded dingy represents a better possibility for good outcome in their life than staying in their own country.


Why don’t people trace the movement of these people back to the root cause and then resolve that so they can stay at home. Like I’m sure they would prefer.

Dublinandy3

lawrencesummers wrote: »

I’m fascinated by the amount of different terms used to describe someone who thinks taking to the English Channel in an overcrowded dingy represents a better possibility for good outcome in their life than staying in their own country.


Why don’t people trace the movement of these people back to the root cause and then resolve that so they can stay at home. Like I’m sure they would prefer.

I think because that wouldn't win votes in the respective countries due to perceived cost (not actual) even if it is the best option.

Dublinandy3

Peregrinus wrote: »

If you want the facts on this, why are you asking me what their reasons are? Surely you should be asking them?

I didn't ready your question as a request for information; I read it as making a rhetorical point. If that was a misreading of your intention, I apologise.

The only person in this thread who has asserted a positive reason for the asylum-seekers crossing the channel is the OP, who asserts that they do it because they will be accommodated in four-star hotels if they do. That seems to me very implausible. Kidchameleon seems to suggest that the Farage video supports the OP's claim, but - despite my earlier invitation - nobody else is willing to say that it does.

A quick google search will show that they are indeed being put up in hotels and b and bs when accommodation centres are full, which they usually are. Again a quick google search will show on very rare occasions they may be high-end ones for a night or two. Finally, another quick google search will show you that inthe the UK at least regardless of the level of the hotel, it's usually for a night or two but can't exceed 19 nights as they are expected to be found long term accommodation by then.

I can't be bothered to give you all the links but I'll give you a start if you're really interested. google united kingdom refugee council and accommodation, that gives you most facts.

ancapailldorcha

biko wrote: »

So that is how you do it.

Don't watch video.
Claim it's not happening.
Partake in debate with zero information, only feelings.

Well, it would be nice to have some actual evidence instead of a video from a known liar, scammer and racist.

Peregrinus

biko wrote: »

To avoid abuses, European law, the Dublin Regulation, requires that asylum seekers have their asylum claim registered in the first country they arrive in, and that the decision of the first EU country they apply in, is the final decision in all EU countries.

They must apply for asylum in France, or even an earlier country if they came overland.
If France do not accept their application then UK will not either and they are illegally crossing borders.

https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/1857/the-dublin-regulation-explained

Your cite seems to contradict your claim. You say that the Dublin Regulation imposes requirements on asylum seekers, but your cite says that it determines the responsibilities of governments.

I am familiar with the Dublin Regulation. Your cite is correct. The Dublin Regulation talks about what EU Member States must or may do; it does not impose any requirements at all on asylum seekers. It does confer certain rights on them (in addition to the rights they already enjoy under the Refugee Convention). They retain their right to apply for asylum wherever they wish.

Peregrinus

Dublinandy3 wrote: »

A quick google search will show that they are indeed being put up in hotels and b and bs when accommodation centres are full, which they usually are. Again a quick google search will show on very rare occasions they may be high-end ones for a night or two. Finally, another quick google search will show you that inthe the UK at least regardless of the level of the hotel, it's usually for a night or two but can't exceed 19 nights as they are expected to be found long term accommodation by then.

I can't be bothered to give you all the links but I'll give you a start if you're really interested. google united kingdom refugee council and accommodation, that gives you most facts.

None of this is in dispute. My question was about the OP's claim that the prospect of four-star accommodation is what motivates them to travel to the UK.

Dublinandy3

Peregrinus wrote: »

None of this is in dispute. My question was about the OP's claim that the prospect of four-star accommodation is what motivates them to travel to the UK.

Well no, it's the prospect of free housing and benefits, not four-star hotels. THat's just right-wing rhetoric.

listermint

biko wrote: »

So that is how you do it.

Don't watch video.
Claim it's not happening.
Partake in debate with zero information, only feelings.

If you are taking your information from a farage created video you are a fool. Go and find out your own information, an ounce of research or a 3 minute web search will have you more informed than watching anything created by that absolute grifter. His sole modus operandi is to sensationalise and keep his name in the papers and profit that's it nothing else nothing more.

I ask you . Would you regularly peruse the daily mail website or buy the national enquirer magazine? If no then when are you watching this crap.


You are completely obliged to do your own research on such topics so go do it.

biko

listermint wrote: »

If you are taking your information from a farage created video you are a fool.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, it would be nice to have some actual evidence instead of a video from a known liar, scammer and racist.

Good morning Britain came out with a similar report.
I can't answer about their level of lying, scamming and racism, but maybe you'll find it more palatable.

Is your contention based on you rejecting immigrants are coming across the channel?
Or that they are claimed to stay in hotels?
Or that Nigel is the person reporting it (it's not what's said but who says it)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCMxcEVOI1Q

Dublinandy3

biko wrote: »

Good morning Britain came out with a similar report.
I can't answer about their level of lying, scamming and racism, but maybe you'll find it more palatable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCMxcEVOI1Q

To be exact they estimate 1800 people in 2019 crossed in small boats from France to the UK. But it wasn't for a four-star hotel if that's the point of discussion.

ancapailldorcha

A whole dingy. Clearly we're all being replaced.

weldoninhio

Peregrinus wrote: »

Possibly because it's not true?

So Good Morning Britain was lying about it too???

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/good-morning-britain-channel-boat-migrants-jonathan-swain-a9656821.html