English Channel - A political/migration question

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Pete7

So you are advising stopping alongside a group of strangers in an overloaded dinghy? You have thought this through or have some experience. You feel these people are nice home town boys who respect.

So how exactly will you protect your wife, family and property from these strangers? Notice how the majority are young men who claim they have nothing, apart from now your boat.

Note, these are the same people who have just burnt down a barracks in the UK after being rescued, offered food, accommodation and safety.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...cks-for-months

With a small crew on board an average sized yacht, you will stay well away and just call it in.

Pete

If they were in distress, damn right I would definitely promptly go to their assistance without hesitation, just like I would go to the assistance of any recreational boater, or commercial fisherperson.

I don't fear people who are trying to achieve a better life for themselves and their families. I have aided in sponsoring migrants and asylum seekers.

One of my great, great, grandmothers departed Ireland during the famine, [back when England was the wealthiest and most powerful country on the earth but which country did not provide any significant assistance to the impoverished Irish]. She travelled with one of her older brothers. She was 14 years old. Her brother died aboard the ship. She arrived at Ellis Island alone, had no family or relatives or friends in the States. She did not speak American, Gaelic being the native tongue of the Irish. She was not invited to come to the USA, i.e., she was not issued a visa before traveling. She simply boarded a ship, voyaged and arrived in New York and was processed and permitted then had to find her way as a migrant in a new to her country. She did not have to be smuggled in to the country. If her ship had been in distress I would have hoped for her sake that another ship would have come along to off load her and the motley, desperate bunch of poor Irish so as to provide her safe accommodation and transport. Ditto for all my other migrant ancestors from Europe to the New England, including my British ancestors.

Another ancestor travelled from France with General La Fayette to fight for independence of the colonies, definitely amongst the earliest of Brexitors, [a French Brexitor]. Now I would not have expected that the British would have come to the aid of any of the ships of the squadron of General La Fayette [a.k.a. Kayewla (fearsome horseman)] and I would have expected that they would have detained him and deported him, if they did not shoot him.

[JPA Cate]

Here's a link to a rescue in which some CF members were the principle rescuers: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29391116

Empathy and compassion, and where possible, real help. Law of the sea, we try not to let people drown. Sometimes people drown. It's a hard world.

Ann

[Montanan]

Recalling when the USA had the "wet foot, dry foot" migration policy. Many thousands of Cubans in particular arrived and were granted asylum if they placed foot on US soil, if detained at sea they were returned. That policy was ended in the Obama administration.

If you found persons in a raft at sea all one had to do was to get them to shore then they were good to go. Lot's of volunteers flying spotter planes and then interdicting with private boats to lend a hand to Florida.

Wiki:

The wet feet, dry feet policy or wet foot, dry foot policy was the name given to a former interpretation of the 1995 revision of the application of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 that essentially says that anyone who emigrated from Cuba and entered the United States would be allowed to pursue residency a year later. Prior to 1995, the U.S. government allowed all Cubans who reached U.S. territorial waters to remain in the U.S. After talks with the Cuban government, the Bill Clinton administration came to an agreement with Cuba that it would stop admitting people intercepted in U.S. waters. For two decades thereafter, any Cuban caught on the waters between the two nations (with "wet feet") would summarily be returned to Cuba or sent to a third country, while one who made it to shore ("dry feet") got a chance to remain in the United States, and later would qualify for expedited "legal permanent resident" status in accordance with the 1966 Act and eventually U.S. citizenship. On January 12, 2017, Barack Obama announced the immediate end of the policy,

Between 1960 and 1980, hundreds of thousands of Cubans entered the United States under the Attorney General's parole authority, many of them arriving by boat. In 1980, a mass migration of asylum seekers—known as the Mariel boatlift—brought approximately 125,000 Cubans (and 25,000 Haitians) to South Florida over a six-month period. After declining for several years, Cuban "boat people" steadily rose from a few hundred in 1989 to a few thousand in 1993. The number of Cubans gathered by the U.S. Coast Guard or the U.S. Border Patrol reached a post-Mariel high of 37,191 in 1994.

[CatNewBee]

On FB are often reports from USCG rescue missions and deportations back to Cuba after the rescue. So the policy seems to be still in place.

[SeanPatrick]

Originally Posted by muttnik

Use of the term "illegals" to refer to migrants by speakers of British english implies a strongly anti-immigration stance on behalf of the speaker.

SMH.


To me, it implies a pro-legal immigration stance ... and use of the word "migrants" implies an inability to accept (or admit) the fact that these people are breaking the laws of the countries they are entering. YMMV.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by SeanPatrick

SMH.


To me, it implies a pro-legal immigration stance ... and use of the word "migrants" implies an inability to accept (or admit) the fact that these people are breaking the laws of the countries they are entering. YMMV.

People who make an application for entry into a country for the purpose of immigration, are accepted and enter the country through ports of entry complying with all required processes are legal immigrants. Folks who ignore these proper processes by self selecting for immigration and attempt to enter a country otherwise than through the proper ports of entry and without proper documentation are illegal immigrants. It's as simple as that.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Montanan

If they were in distress, damn right I would definitely promptly go to their assistance without hesitation, just like I would go to the assistance of any recreational boater, or commercial fisherperson.

I don't fear people who are trying to achieve a better life for themselves and their families. I have aided in sponsoring migrants and asylum seekers.

One of my great, great, grandmothers departed Ireland during the famine, [back when England was the wealthiest and most powerful country on the earth but which country did not provide any significant assistance to the impoverished Irish]. She travelled with one of her older brothers. She was 14 years old. Her brother died aboard the ship. She arrived at Ellis Island alone, had no family or relatives or friends in the States. She did not speak American, Gaelic being the native tongue of the Irish. She was not invited to come to the USA, i.e., she was not issued a visa before traveling. She simply boarded a ship, voyaged and arrived in New York and was processed and permitted then had to find her way as a migrant in a new to her country. She did not have to be smuggled in to the country. If her ship had been in distress I would have hoped for her sake that another ship would have come along to off load her and the motley, desperate bunch of poor Irish so as to provide her safe accommodation and transport. Ditto for all my other migrant ancestors from Europe to the New England, including my British ancestors.

Another ancestor travelled from France with General La Fayette to fight for independence of the colonies, definitely amongst the earliest of Brexitors, [a French Brexitor]. Now I would not have expected that the British would have come to the aid of any of the ships of the squadron of General La Fayette [a.k.a. Kayewla (fearsome horseman)] and I would have expected that they would have detained him and deported him, if they did not shoot him.

A noble sentiment from a remote landlocked location 5000+ miles from the action..
In my experience over the decades the average public's inclination to get involved has greatly decreased to the large majority either just looking the other way and walking on by or, whipping out their smartphones and filming from the sidelines..
Having watched boats sail on past a few miles from me when a general call to assist was put out by the Coastguard my faith in the average boater is to realise there are exceptions rather than the rule just as on land.
I would and have happily gone to the assistance of a fellow yacht and would even close a sinking ship if I felt I could save someone, however when it comes to a boatload of young men of fighting age who originate from lands where life has little value I would think twice.
I would definitely toss my dinghy over the side for people to hang onto plus any lifejackets if needed to help them stay afloat, however I would be reluctant to allow up to 15 strangers board me in the middle of the Channel or the Med.
Rather I would keep them watered and stay close by till the authorities arrived.
But hey.. nothing to stop you buying a boat and going NGO..
Re Lafayette, that's what people did to the enemy back then..

[muttnik]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Guess yours the 'Open Borders' style of politics.. Semantics...

It seems that in today's polarised world people only see "if you don't support me you must have the polar opposite view". No, you cannot infer my position on immigration and asylum laws because I was criticising introducing politics to a seamanship forum without addressing your beliefs or stating whether I hold any.

As previously stated, procedure on encountering migrants *is* a relevant seamanship question independent of one's disposition towards their situation.

Originally Posted by SeanPatrick

SMH.


To me, it implies a pro-legal immigration stance

Originally Posted by RaymondR

With respect, you'll notice I specifically said "British English" and you can't be expected to know the subtleties of language use by UK subcultures. My point was not about what the word applies to but that the word itself is (in the UK at least) politically charged and only used by those hostile to the people they're applying it to.

Seamanship should transcend politics. I'm not going ask a drowning person how they voted in the Brexit referendum before deciding on my course of action.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by boatman61

[ however I would be reluctant to allow up to 15 strangers board me in the middle of the Channel or the Med.
Rather I would keep them watered and stay close by till the authorities arrived.

Indeed.

Pete

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by muttnik

It seems that in today's polarised world people only see "if you don't support me you must have the polar opposite view". No, you cannot infer my position on immigration and asylum laws because I was criticising introducing politics to a seamanship forum without addressing your beliefs or stating whether I hold any.

As previously stated, procedure on encountering migrants *is* a relevant seamanship question independent of one's disposition towards their situation.

And one I have addressed.. I have no particular disposition toward their situation other than I would rather alert the authorities re location and heading and keep them updated till they arrived. I would rather they are officially landed than beaching independently to disappear into the country.
For security reasons alone if nothing else.



With respect, you'll notice I specifically said "British English" and you can't be expected to know the subtleties of language use by UK subcultures. My point was not about what the word applies to but that the word itself is (in the UK at least) politically charged and only used by those hostile to the people they're applying it to.

Seamanship should transcend politics. I'm not going ask a drowning person how they voted in the Brexit referendum before deciding on my course of action.

I doubt if the people (illegals) under discussion had any involvement in the Brexit vote so that's an irrelevance.. your very act of delving into semantics and the 'UK Sub Cultures' is by itself a billboard sign of your politics and sense of superiority.. normal people don't give it a second thought.
Oh.. plus the fact of all the papers covering the subject you chose the Guardian..

[muttnik]

Originally Posted by boatman61

your very act of delving into semantics and the 'UK Sub Cultures' is by itself a billboard sign of your politics and sense of superiority.. normal people don't give it a second thought.
Oh.. plus the fact of all the papers covering the subject you chose the Guardian..

Is this the "If you don't support me you must have polar opposite views" thing again?

You'll notice in my first contribution to this thread I suggested that the first course of action should be notifying the coastguard who would dispatch border force / lifeboats as necessary

The Guardian article was the most recent one google turned up (2nd June) which had figures. I would happily have linked to the Mail if such an article had been more recent: Despite widely differing editorial stances, both are governed by IPSO so the factual content (ie statistics) within should be accurate.

The brexit reference was not applicable to the migrants: Given that this remains the biggest UK social rift it was an illustration of how politics should be irrelevant when it comes to seamanship.

Your initial contribution to this thread had zero relevance to sailing or seamanship. It was purely political and that was my objection: Divisive politics ruins interesting threads. Some of your later contributions, such as emphasising the need for risk assessment to avoid one's own vessel being overwhelmed and deploying a dinghy as an alternative to taking casualties aboard your boat are perfectly reasonable.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by muttnik

The brexit reference was not applicable to the migrants: Given that this remains the biggest UK social rift it was an illustration of how politics should be irrelevant when it comes to seamanship.

Is this the "If you don't support me you must have polar opposite views" thing again?

You'll notice in my first contribution to this thread I suggested that the first course of action should be notifying the coastguard who would dispatch border force / lifeboats as necessary

The Guardian article was the most recent one google turned up (2nd June) which had figures. I would happily have linked to the Mail if such an article had been more recent: Despite widely differing editorial stances, both are governed by IPSO so the factual content (ie statistics) within should be accurate.

Your initial contribution to this thread had zero relevance to sailing or seamanship. It was purely political and that was my objection: Divisive politics ruins interesting threads. Some of your later contributions, such as emphasising the need for risk assessment to avoid one's own vessel being overwhelmed and deploying a dinghy as an alternative to taking casualties aboard your boat are perfectly reasonable.

My first contribution to the thread was a response to a statement as to whether or not these dinghies were a 'feature'..

Originally Posted by goboatingnow View Post
Migrants crossing the English Channel by dinghy isn’t a big feature. Most migrants don’t seek entry into the U.K. anyway most dissipate around Northern Europe in the main.

Encounters with U.K. border forces remain limited in my experience and most boaters will be unlikely to encounter them.

Also, you introduced the politics with your response to my post...
But thank you for acknowledging I'm not all bad..

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Considering over 7,000 illegals have crossed by dinghy so far this year I beg to differ..
If you calculate say 10/dinghy that's an average of 38 dinghies a day.. seems a pretty big feature to me...

Indeed.
Boatie seems to be [more or less] correct, according to the BBC [& others], 'lots' of refugees are arriving in the UK, from small boats:

More than 8,438 people crossed the English Channel, in about 635 boats, in 2020.
Channel migrants: More than 8,000 people make crossing in 2020
➥ https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-55501123

As of March 26, 2021, about 1,123 people have now made the crossing so far this year, compared to 434 in the same period in 2020.
As of 4 days ago [June 10], the total number of migrants who have arrived from France, so far this, year is 4,439.

See also:
“Numbers of migrants crossing English Channel continue to rise” ➥ https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post...ntinue-to-rise

[muttnik]

Originally Posted by boatman61

My first contribution to the thread was a response to a statement as to whether or not these dinghies were a 'feature'..

That it happens and has increased in frequency over the past couple of years is just a fact: goboatingnow wasn't disputing that but replying to the question of whether it was an issue for recreational boaters. It isn't. It's not a feature for us from a boating perspective.

It's clearly a big divisive political feature within the UK but that's a social/political issue

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by muttnik

That it happens and has increased in frequency over the past couple of years is just a fact: goboatingnow wasn't disputing that but replying to the question of whether it was an issue for recreational boaters. It isn't. It's not a feature for us from a boating perspective.

It's clearly a big divisive political feature within the UK but that's a social/political issue

Legal/Illegal is now something you will have to factor into any future 'Booze Cruise's' to Dieppe or Cherbourg..
As any Aussie, American or Delivery Skipper will tell you, the legalities/illegalities of entering other Countries and the EU by boat IS a major part of sailing life.. if you actually go anywhere.
So a lot to do with sailing..