UK will finally off shore illegal asylum seekers crossing the channel

I havent proposed anything. I just wished that thered be a change from the current mess. Maybe you think its grand as is. But its clearly not.

The metrics involved may make controlling the north coast a win-win for France. Thered sure be a lot fewer illegals and unknowns moving around and camping in the coastal areas. Never good to have profressional people smugglers in your town. They tend not to be nice people.

I hope the situation will change. Even if you dont.

Under what law is it a criminal offence to leave a country? France is in the Schengen Zone and doesn't even operate border or passport controls with Belgium, NL, Luxembourg , Germany, Spain etc. How would they be arresting anyone leaving by boat from the north coast?

they can just send them the way of a failed state which refuses to govern itself, meaning they have to spend no money and said failed state will throw money at them to pretend to deal with the issue.

an issue that could be solved by the uk growing up and governing itself and employing sufficient staff to enforce the border, not to mention opening up legal and safe routes from countries where refugees are coming from.

the french are playing an absolute blinder here, they couldn't wish for a better situation.

Really? I can think of a better situation. And that would be no illegal migrants hanging around Calais, camping homeless here and there, ripping open trucks and jumping inside. Ive seen spokespeople for the relevant areas on the news saying the same. I dont think they really view the current mess as someone having played a blinder.

But yes, France is secondary to all this anyway. Its a 'UK-Immigrant' issue primarily. It just spills over into France, unfortunately.

Hopefully the prospect of being sufficiently cared for in Rwanda, rather than finishing their welfare shopping trip in London, will change things. Youll be safe and sound in Rwanda. Just like you could have been safe and sound in any of the many places you passed by en route for some non-financial reason.

Better fantasy than anything you can come up with.

Just let them all in maaaan. Peace and love.

Oh.

So you mean theyre still going to try crossing the icy waters of the channel at night in dinghies?

Well thank god for that.

the racist rwanda policy (rwanda not being a safe country anyway) will change sweet FA thankfully.

it will just be the BNP/national front/UKIP light brigade pissing away money for the rwandans just to release the migrants on arrival to go elsewhere.

nothing will change, the boat crossings will remain at the same number or increase and people in the UK will get poorer and poorer while the rats running the place take as much of the money as they can and sifen it away for themselves.

by the way one can apply for assylum in any country, they don't have to apply for it in the first safe one as claimed.

and more migrants work then are on wellfare, more natives are on wellfare then migrants, all because a wealthy country refuses to grow up and govern itself.

What the UK have done, i.e. very little, for their iraqi and afghan allies is definitely the most shameful part of their immigration policy. I cant see how they dont go out of their way to assist the immigration of those who risked ther lines to support uk soldiers.

Refugees are not "on the run". Any time they are intercepted by French authorities, they are intercepted merely for their own safety. as the authorities fear the boat might capsize crossing the Channel. They haven't actually broken any law by trying to leave French jurisdiction.

This is more about you trying to infer that refugees and asylum seekers are criminals.

I didnt say they were on the run. I said a given person leaving a country without a passport may well be suspected by authorities of being on the run.

Do those methods include just accepting any old geezer who lands on your beach with no documents.

Cause thats a dumb thing to do.

Maybe so.

But they also have a moral responsibility to citizens of their country to know who they are letting in. To allow dangerous individuals in is to endanger the people.

To passively allow a system which brings unknown people in is to endanger the population through lack of care.

It will be interesting if/when a victim of a dangerous illegal immigrant goes on to sue the govt.

Maybe so? Definitely so. People would have more sympathy for the uks plight if they allowed legal routes for asylum seekers. I have way more stmpathy for italy who has been involved in very few wars but takes in way more asylum applicants and illegal immigrants than the uk not helped by the uk causimg so much instability around the Mediterranean shores of libya and syria. The rwanda plan will only work if they ship immigrants to there in the thousands otherwise the immigrants will still be willing to take their chances.