English Channel - A political/migration question

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

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.

If you arrive in a country without permission to do , no matter how you i got there you have by definition arrived illegally. However you “ may” have ground to claim asylum etc.

They are not immigrants at that point. They might be called illegal aliens.

People living and residing in a country without permission are correctly illegal immigrants or “ undocumented “ as the more PC sides of US perspectives are want to say

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

Report sight to coastguard with position and stay clear is all you can do without getting in trouble.

US, Canada have a pretty sane and rigid push back on illegal entry. Europe should do the same to save lives and stop encourage this human trafficking.

You can apply for asylum, but not break the law by illegally entering.

We have encountered migrant activities in the Med when we crossed south coast of Sardinia, they use flimpsy wooden fisherman boats loaded with about 10..12 people with insane powerfull outboards, speeding well over 20kn. Coadguard tried to chase them, it took a while until they got them to stop and follow, they first tried to outrun the coastguard vessel.

Usually it is a business for the fishermen, they rarely come in rubber dinghies - except they know they will be picked up by resque ferries of the NGOs off the coast.

I am pretty sure, a big part of the illegal migration into the UK is not done by rubber dinghies, but by smuggling on rigid fishing vessels.

Migrants with nothing to loose do not buy new dinghies and outboards anyway, so no market impact.

In Greece were reports last year of a stolen Yacht used by smugglers to ferry migrants and then abandoned at sea near shore ending up on the rocks. There is a lot of criminal energy and money at stake.

A crew of a commercial ship was taken hostage by a group of resqued migrants too - as reported.

Err Europe is doing huge amounts to prevent illegal immigration attempts by sea. The U.K. uptill now have done little , largely relying on the French until Brexit happened.

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Err Europe is doing huge amounts to prevent illegal immigration attempts by sea. The U.K. uptill now have done little , largely relying on the French until Brexit happened.

Not true, during the last big increase thanks to the Germans giving a green light saying "come, come" the UK sent 5 warships to the Med to assist with policing the southern boarders of the Med.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Pete7

Not true, during the last big increase thanks to the Germans giving a green light saying "come, come" the UK sent 5 warships to the Med to assist with policing the southern boarders of the Med.

So did many countries.

The Germans largely deported virtually all the people supposedly left in under merkel . In fact despite her public comments what actually was allowed was far less and many were accessed for asylum claims and deporte
The reality despite Farage orientated nonsense is the U.K. has been subject to very little illegal immigrant issues in comparison to many other EU countries. This is largely due to it being an island and also that most immigrants disperse throughout Northern Europe if they can.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by muttnik

. . .Dover is a big commercial port. There's a not-too-glamourous marina there but (and correction/criticism accepted on this point) for recreational boaters it's not somewhere you'd choose to keep your boat if you didn't live there: i. . ..

I would like to pipe up in defense of Dover.


Dover is actually my favorite port on the South Coast of England East of the Solent. It's actually NOT a "big commercial port"; it has significant ferry operations but not much other ship traffic.


There are three different marinas, all of them quite small and, in my opinion, very nice and cosy. Nothing fancy and no extraordinary infrastructure, but relatively inexpensive. Much more pleasant (to my taste) than the big corporate marinas of MDL, Premier, etc. And Dover is one of the very few harbours in UK waters where you are (or were -- I haven't been there in a few years) allowed to anchor out inside the harbor! Getting in and out is a bit tricky as you need permission from the harbourmaster (he times it to prevent interference with the ferries) but the harbourmasters are nice and helpful guys; marina staff too by the way.


The town of Dover is atmospheric and a great place to wander around. The ancient yacht club (the very quaint Royal Cinq Ports Yacht Club) is exceptionally welcoming to sailors from out of town, and have frequent evenings and different events in the summer. I have met a lot of interesting people there. There are a lot of good places to eat. And Dover Castle is one of the best historical sites in the UK. There is a lot to do there, and it's not just a good staging point, but a great place to spend a few days. I have often used Dover for crew changes and rest on my biannual migration between Cowes and Helsinki.

[Montanan]

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.

migrant

NOUN
a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions.

immigrant

NOUN
a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.


illegal

NOUN
derogatory
NORTH AMERICAN
a person present in a country without official authorization.

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

So did many countries.

The Germans largely deported virtually all the people supposedly left in under merkel . In fact despite her public comments what actually was allowed was far less and many were accessed for asylum claims and deporte
The reality despite Farage orientated nonsense is the U.K. has been subject to very little illegal immigrant issues in comparison to many other EU countries. This is largely due to it being an island and also that most immigrants disperse throughout Northern Europe if they can.

Barely one percent if any were pushed back. Germany still struggles with deporting of even notorious criminals.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

Barely one percent if any were pushed back. Germany still struggles with deporting of even notorious criminals.

What’s your point. My point is the U.K. only deals with a fraction of the Eu wide immigrant issue. Easy to be righteous when it’s not really on your doorstep.

[Montanan]

Solid reference for this subject, albeit with a distinctly British anti-migration orientation.

For a nation that forcibly migrated themselves and colonized a huge part of the world, it sure stands clear that they take issue when natives of their former colonies desire to migrate peaceably to their former Commonwealth instigator.

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/bri...nnel-crossings
Unauthorised Channel Crossings
published by Migrant Watch UK

Snipets:

Introduction

There are various routes used to enter the UK illegally from northern France and Belgium, including: by hiding in the backs of lorries and other vehicles or in small aircraft landing on the many isolated airstrips around the UK. In a 2016 report on illegal lorry drops, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) said that the number of clandestine migrants encountered between 2014 and 2015 rose threefold, from 2,411 to 6,429. Of the latter, 93% claimed asylum. Only 2.3% (149) of the total encountered in 2015 were known to have been refused or removed by 2016 .

The wider context is the scale and growing population of unauthorised migrants in the UK: A recent estimate put the number of illegal migrants at between 800,000 and 1.2 million (the largest number in any European country).[3] Similar estimates have been made by former senior Home Office personnel. Our own analysis has found that the number of illegal migrants in the UK may be witnessing a net increase of at least 70,000 per year

. . .


The National Crime Agency (NCA) told a Parliamentary Committee in February 2019 that the share of those arriving via small boats was a very small percentage of the total of arriving ‘clandestine’ arrivals (including by lorry or air). The NCA added that the model of this particular form of immigration crime [attempts at unauthorised entry across the Channel] had shifted from one where people previously sought to avoid detection to one where they are happy to be seen and ‘picked up’: with most immediately claiming asylum (House of Commons Home Affairs Committee hearing - see video, February 2019).


What action is being taken?

The French and UK governments say they have been working together to ‘manage’ illegal migration:

The two governments signed a joint declaration in 2015 which committed to:
ensuring effective security at the Channel Tunnel and the Port of Calais

collaboration between French and UK law enforcement agencies

managing migrants in Calais

mobilising European and international action

‘Ministerial oversight, governance and programme management’

. . .


Possible means of removal
11. There appear to be four ways in which those crossing the Channel in small boats may be removed or transferred out of the UK:

Illegal migrants who have set off from France but who are returned there immediately
Illegal migrants who enter the UK but who do not claim asylum and are liable for immediate removal
Those coming here by way of Europe who go on to claim asylum here. As this will not be their first safe country of arrival, they may be transferred so that their asylum claim is processed by another European country, under the EU’s Dublin III agreement
Those who claim asylum in the UK but whose application is rejected, including after any possible appeal, who would then be subject to removal


. . .

The government’s response has been beset by a range of problems, not least of which is the knowledge that those claiming asylum in the UK are unlikely to be removed, even if their asylum claim is rejected.
Which likely is similar to the situation in the USA where in now most of the asylum seeking immigrants seek out the Border Patrol as soon as possible so as to turn themselves in for administrative processing and to initiate the long process of asylum court proceedings. Those with criminal records are detained and deported those that do not have criminal records are generally released with a future legal proceeding scheduled.

. . .

The biggest incentive for those attempting dangerous Channel crossings is the knowledge that being picked up by a British Border Force vessel or managing to set foot on our soil provides a strong chance of a permanent stay. One way to neutralise this would be UK and French government agreement that anyone intercepted, wherever in the Channel or on reaching UK shores, will be returned immediately to France where any application for asylum could be made.

Given that most will stay permanently in the UK it would be simpler and safer to just process them at a border point of entry and to induce disincentive for the criminal smuggling route. There being the Chunnel as an alternative which large number of lorries have been the primary route of smuggling.

[Montanan]

Why are migrants crossing the English Channel?
By Dominic Casciani
BBC Home Affairs correspondent

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53699511


How many migrants arrive in the UK each year?

In 2019, some 677,000 people moved to the UK as long-term immigrants, for reasons such as work or study.

There were also 49,000 asylum applications.

As such, the 4,000 unauthorised Channel arrivals are equal to less than 1% of all immigrants last year.

Truly much ado about nearly nothing.

. . .

Where do the Channel migrants come from ?

In short, the poorest and most chaotic parts of the world. Recent arrivals have included entire families from Yemen, Eritrea, Chad, Egypt, Sudan and Iraq.

Many ask to claim asylum once they are picked up by the UK authorities.

Others are economic migrants who have no real claim for refuge. They are seeking to work in the UK without applying for a visa because they think it is better than staying in their homelands.

. . .

Should they not stay in France or another country?
It depends. Under a long-standing European Union deal, called "Dublin III", the UK has the right to send back anyone who is seeking asylum if they could have reasonably claimed it in another country along the way.
That arrangement will end at the end of the Brexit transition period - next January - unless the UK and the EU agree a similar deal.I wonder what the arrangement is now that the UK is out of the EU, seemingly the Dublin III accord would be inapplicable once the UK Brexited and thus does not garner the benefit of participation in the Union, no longer being inclusive as to border control policies and procedures. Instead becoming a magnet for asylum and refuge from the EU countries.

Other arrivals may have a stronger case to apply for asylum in the UK because they have relatives here already.

What happens to them in the UK ?

When migrants are picked up crossing the Channel, they are typically taken by the UK Border Force to short-term holding centres. If someone makes an asylum claim, and they have no money, they might then be placed in accommodation anywhere in the UK. This is paid for by the Home Office while the application is considered.
Others might be kept in detention ahead of a plan to send them back to Europe.
Very few are deported.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Solid reference for this subject, albeit with a distinctly British anti-migration orientation.

For a nation that forcibly migrated themselves and colonized a huge part of the world, it sure stands clear that they take issue when natives of their former colonies desire to migrate peaceably to their former Commonwealth instigator.

Yup.. we are bastards..
However on the plus side we are offering 3 million Hong Kong citizens the legal right to relocate to the UK following the Chinese suppression of Democracy..
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56669016...27s%20autonomy.

There's the right way, and there's the wrong way...
But be careful with those stones..

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by boatman61

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..

Hmmm, perceiving perhaps a biased stereotypical opinion towards refugees.

Wondering where that is rooted in?

Agreed that if the state of distress can be resolved without taking person's aboard then that is a viable alternative. One ratchets up the level of engagement based on the situation. Calling the authorities for assistance being the first action, calling for the support of other nearby boats also being a priority action.

Kind of like my lifeguard training, first lesson do NOT go into the water. Enter the water and come into direct contact with a person that is drowning as a last resort, but become skilled at physical rescuing for when the situation warrants such. Most of my "rescues" did not require cross carrying of the person in distress, albeit when that person was a child, I without hesitant dove in and carried them to safety, just simpler and quicker, with far less trauma.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Yup.. we are bastards..
However on the plus side we are offering 3 million Hong Kong citizens the legal right to relocate to the UK following the Chinese suppression of Democracy..
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56669016...27s%20autonomy.

There's the right way, and there's the wrong way...
But be careful with those stones..

Recalling a professor at my undergraduate University that taught International Business classes at the California Polytechnic State University - San Luis Obispo back in the late 1970's before the transfer / end of lease for Hong Kong, recommending that any and all nations would benefit greatly if they were to avail the open and state sponsored migration of the Hong Kong residents to their country. He said that they are a people with great work ethic and sound character and many had considerable wealth that could be transferred. He advocated that the USA, and California in particular extend a welcoming hand and provide for a hugely greater quota to Hong Kong before the 1986 transition. It was a missed opportunity then for the USA, perhaps the USA should not miss the opportunity yet again, there would be a large welcoming Chinese American community to assist in sponsoring them.

Likewise the UK will benefit greatly from Hong Kong migrants and the historical ties, well they certainly are binding.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

If you arrive in a country without permission to do , no matter how you i got there you have by definition arrived illegally. However you “ may” have ground to claim asylum etc.

They are not immigrants at that point. They might be called illegal aliens.

People living and residing in a country without permission are correctly illegal immigrants or “ undocumented “ as the more PC sides of US perspectives are want to say

Goes to motive.

If their motive is to enter and remain permanently they're immigrants. They become immigrants when they start the journey ie. they have begun the process of "immigrating" when they make the decision to relocate and start packing their bags. First comes the intention, which remains metaphysical until they start to pack their bags thereby beginning the physical process of putting the intention into practice.

The Australian experience is that once you cease a strict enforcement of the immigration laws the marketing departments of the criminal people smuggling gangs use it as a pull factor to induce their customer base, ie, the pool of reasonably well off, middle classes in third world countries who want the opportunities available to people in western societies, to invest in an illegal migration venture. This occurred in Australia with a change of government in the early 2000,s and the result was 50,000 boat transported, illegal immigrants and about 1,200 deaths by drowning.

[Montanan]

As to resolving the immigration issue, particularly with regard to those that are crossing the channel, I'll propose this as a recommendation.