http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/590...port-expansion

But nothing to keep immigrants out of the UK.

"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/590...port-expansion

But nothing to keep immigrants out of the UK.

Another pig ignorant lie.

Why don't they ak the un to police the first country of entry rules for
them, so at least they would not get as far as France etc, as its a big
headache for them also.
I've never quite understood why this is not upheld and the person sent back
to their entry point for assylum. Obviously, once accepted and perhaps
given some work they can then see if they can finance thmselves to go
anywhere in the eu, but at the moment its just a total shambles, wich
everyone passing the buck.
These are mostly displaced people so there has to be some kind of organised
way to get them sorted.
brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"harry" wrote in message
...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/590...port-expansion

But nothing to keep immigrants out of the UK.

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:24:04 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote:

Why don't they ak the un to police the first country of entry rules for
them

If you're going to police "first country of entry", you need to have some
way to spread the load across all the EU once people are accepted.
Without that, those countries with Med shorelines are being asked to take
EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY. That's just unrealistic.

And, if there is a fairer distribution across the continent, then the UK
will be taking more, not less. We currently have far fewer than "our fair
share".

"Adrian" wrote in message ...

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:24:04 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote:

Why don't they ak the un to police the first country of entry rules for
them

If you're going to police "first country of entry", you need to have some
way to spread the load across all the EU once people are accepted.
Without that, those countries with Med shorelines are being asked to take
EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY. That's just unrealistic.

And, if there is a fairer distribution across the continent, then the UK
will be taking more, not less. We currently have far fewer than "our fair
share".

One is more than "our fair share", they should be distributed evenly along
the north African coast.

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:53:53 +0100, Richard wrote:

One is more than "our fair share", they should be distributed evenly
along the north African coast.

Go and look at a map of the North African coast.

On 13/07/2015 08:01, harry wrote:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/590...port-expansion

But nothing to keep immigrants out of the UK.


The port is not their main target. Even when a number managed to break
into the port last year, they were unable to get aboard any of the ferries.

--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:24:04 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote:

Why don't they ak the un to police the first country of entry rules for
them

If you're going to police "first country of entry", you need to have
some way to spread the load across all the EU once people are accepted.
Without that, those countries with Med shorelines are being asked to
take EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY. That's just unrealistic.

Quite. After all one of the most common reasons given for restricting
immigration to the UK is we're a small over populated island. Just imagine
what it must be like on Lesbos, etc.

And, if there is a fairer distribution across the continent, then the UK
will be taking more, not less. We currently have far fewer than "our
fair share".

The whole thing needs some proper thought. Why 'save' those asylum seekers
from a dangerous sea crossing if not prepared to give them a chance of a
decent life? Would make more sense to just return them to where they came
from.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:56:42 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The whole thing needs some proper thought. Why 'save' those asylum
seekers from a dangerous sea crossing if not prepared to give them a
chance of a decent life? Would make more sense to just return them to
where they came from.

Can't easily do that.

To "return" somebody rescued from international waters to Libya (say)
would require them to either be demonstrably a Libyan national or for the
Libyan gov't to accept them.

And there isn't a Libyan government to accept anybody or anything...

Damn that whole international law mullarkey...

On Monday, 13 July 2015 11:59:34 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:24:04 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote:

Why don't they ak the un to police the first country of entry rules for
them

If you're going to police "first country of entry", you need to have
some way to spread the load across all the EU once people are accepted.
Without that, those countries with Med shorelines are being asked to
take EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY. That's just unrealistic.

Quite. After all one of the most common reasons given for restricting
immigration to the UK is we're a small over populated island. Just imagine
what it must be like on Lesbos, etc.

Strange that I haven't heard the usual cry of 'immigration is good for the economy', which people tend to point out regarding people coming to the UK.




And, if there is a fairer distribution across the continent, then the UK
will be taking more, not less. We currently have far fewer than "our
fair share".

It's difficult top get ral numbers when they confuse asylum seekers with refugess and that's just those they know about.


The whole thing needs some proper thought. Why 'save' those asylum seekers
from a dangerous sea crossing if not prepared to give them a chance of a
decent life? Would make more sense to just return them to where they came
from.

Why are we only concerned with those that can afford the 1000s it costs to be illegal trasported from their country, what of the poorer that have to stay and suffer while the rich are lucky enough to escape from and get help. ?

On 13/07/2015 13:52, whisky-dave wrote:
....
Strange that I haven't heard the usual cry of 'immigration is good for the economy', which people tend to point out regarding people coming to the UK.

Perhaps because that only applies to legal immigrants from other EU
countries.


--
Colin Bignell

On Monday, 13 July 2015 12:41:03 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:56:42 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The whole thing needs some proper thought. Why 'save' those asylum
seekers from a dangerous sea crossing if not prepared to give them a
chance of a decent life? Would make more sense to just return them to
where they came from.

Can't easily do that.

To "return" somebody rescued from international waters to Libya (say)
would require them to either be demonstrably a Libyan national or for the
Libyan gov't to accept them.

And there isn't a Libyan government to accept anybody or anything...

Damn that whole international law mullarkey...

We could offer to police the Tunisian/Libyan border.
Immigrants could be taken to Tunisia and shoved over the border into Libya.
They could then let the others know what's going on.

On 13/07/2015 13:51, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Adrian
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:24:04 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote:

Why don't they ak the un to police the first country of entry rules for
them

If you're going to police "first country of entry", you need to have
some way to spread the load across all the EU once people are accepted.

Presumably you mean, once they are accepted as genuine refugees? I
thought that once this had happened, they could go anywhere in the EU.
So they would do the redistribution themselves.

Not so. Once granted refugee status, they are foreign nationals within
the country that granted them asylum. They are not EU citizens and do
not have the right of free movement within the EU.

If they want to move to another country, inside or outside the EU, they
have to apply separately for residency of that country, without the
benefit of being able to claim refugee status. That is why they try to
reach a specific country before applying for asylum.

Oddly enough, many of those trying to get across the Channel would do
better under the French provisions for refugees than they would under
the UK rules. Only those with families would be better off in the UK.
However, language is a significant driving factor; a lot of those trying
to get to Britain are from Eritrea, where English is widely spoken.
Perhaps we should fund French lessons in Eritrea.

--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
harry wrote:
We could offer to police the Tunisian/Libyan border.

Given we can't even police our own - when surrounded by water - you think?

--
*Never slap a man who's chewing tobacco *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:22:20 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

Presumably you mean, once they are accepted as genuine refugees? I
thought that once this had happened, they could go anywhere in the EU.
So they would do the redistribution themselves.

Not so. Once granted refugee status, they are foreign nationals within
the country that granted them asylum. They are not EU citizens and do
not have the right of free movement within the EU.

Not quite...

Schengen, there's no borders*. There is no difference.

If they want to move to another country, inside or outside the EU, they
have to apply separately for residency of that country, without the
benefit of being able to claim refugee status. That is why they try to
reach a specific country before applying for asylum.

Except the asylum tests are standardised throughout the EU, and one
country's results of those tests is accepted by every other country.

So somebody granted asylum in one country would automatically have that
asylum respected in another.

However, language is a significant driving factor; a lot of those trying
to get to Britain are from Eritrea, where English is widely spoken.

There are, of course, a lot of largely-Francophone former French colonies
in Africa.

* - Well, there shouldn't be...

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:25:52 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

OK. In that case why aren't the `french preventing their entry from
Italy?

Because they're both Schengen countries.

Oh, and...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33131893

But these are people whose asylum claims haven't been processed yet.
There is a certain irony, of course, given Sangatte...

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:35:16 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

We could offer to police the Tunisian/Libyan border.

Given we can't even police our own - when surrounded by water - you
think?

460km of line across the desert, with one side of that line having no
effective government at all?

Nice easy job...

Let's not forget the near-on thousand km with Algeria - which is not only
pretty much a failed state itself, but has a thousand km of border with
Libya, too.

On 13/07/2015 17:41, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:22:20 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

Presumably you mean, once they are accepted as genuine refugees? I
thought that once this had happened, they could go anywhere in the EU.
So they would do the redistribution themselves.

Not so. Once granted refugee status, they are foreign nationals within
the country that granted them asylum. They are not EU citizens and do
not have the right of free movement within the EU.

Not quite...

Schengen, there's no borders*. There is no difference.

A refugee can cross a Schengen border, but that does not give them the
right to reside or work in the second country. They only have those
rights in the country that grants them asylum.


If they want to move to another country, inside or outside the EU, they
have to apply separately for residency of that country, without the
benefit of being able to claim refugee status. That is why they try to
reach a specific country before applying for asylum.

Except the asylum tests are standardised throughout the EU, and one
country's results of those tests is accepted by every other country.

So somebody granted asylum in one country would automatically have that
asylum respected in another.

IOW, they are not illegal immigrants if they enter another EU country
and meet the requirements for a foreign national visiting that country.
They do not, however, have the automatic right to reside or work in any
country other than the one that grants them asylum.


However, language is a significant driving factor; a lot of those trying
to get to Britain are from Eritrea, where English is widely spoken.

There are, of course, a lot of largely-Francophone former French colonies
in Africa.

Which is reflected in the mix of peoples seeking to settle in France.
Their largest group of asylum seekers come from the Congo.


--
Colin Bignell

On 13/07/2015 17:48, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:35:16 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

We could offer to police the Tunisian/Libyan border.

Given we can't even police our own - when surrounded by water - you
think?

460km of line across the desert, with one side of that line having no
effective government at all?
....

Which is probably why Tunisia is going to build a wall along that
border. How effective it will be is another matter.


--
Colin Bignell

In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 13/07/2015 17:48, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:35:16 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

We could offer to police the Tunisian/Libyan border.

Given we can't even police our own - when surrounded by water - you
think?

460km of line across the desert, with one side of that line having no
effective government at all?
...

Which is probably why Tunisia is going to build a wall along that
border. How effective it will be is another matter.

Both the Romans and the Chinese built walls to keep people out -
successfully, I understand.

--
Please note new email address:

"Adrian" wrote in message ...

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:53:53 +0100, Richard wrote:

One is more than "our fair share", they should be distributed evenly
along the north African coast.

Go and look at a map of the North African coast.

OK.
Back from looking.
And?

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 18:34:42 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

We could offer to police the Tunisian/Libyan border.

Given we can't even police our own - when surrounded by water - you
think?

460km of line across the desert, with one side of that line having no
effective government at all?

Which is probably why Tunisia is going to build a wall along that
border.

Well, along 168km of it. The other 300km aren't a problem, apparently.

How effective it will be is another matter.

Quite.

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 19:12:56 +0100, Richard wrote:

One is more than "our fair share", they should be distributed evenly
along the north African coast.

Go and look at a map of the North African coast.

OK.
Back from looking.
And?

OK, did you notice the 1,200km of Algerian shoreline? Or the 1,800km of
Libyan shoreline?

Or just the 500km of Moroccan Med shoreline and the 1,100km of Tunisian
shoreline?

Perhaps it was just that you didn't really understand the implications
there?

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 13 July 2015 11:59:34 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:24:04 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote:

Why don't they ak the un to police the first country of entry rules
for
them

If you're going to police "first country of entry", you need to have
some way to spread the load across all the EU once people are accepted.
Without that, those countries with Med shorelines are being asked to
take EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY. That's just unrealistic.

Quite. After all one of the most common reasons given for restricting
immigration to the UK is we're a small over populated island. Just
imagine
what it must be like on Lesbos, etc.

Strange that I haven't heard the usual cry of 'immigration is good for the
economy', which people tend to point out regarding people coming to the
UK.




And, if there is a fairer distribution across the continent, then the
UK
will be taking more, not less. We currently have far fewer than "our
fair share".

It's difficult top get ral numbers when they confuse asylum seekers with
refugess and that's just those they know about.


The whole thing needs some proper thought. Why 'save' those asylum
seekers
from a dangerous sea crossing if not prepared to give them a chance of a
decent life? Would make more sense to just return them to where they came
from.

Why are we only concerned with those that can afford the 1000s it costs
to be illegal trasported from their country, what of the poorer that have
to
stay and suffer while the rich are lucky enough to escape from and get
help. ?

Because there will always be plenty of places that couldn't organise
a ****up in a brewery like Zimbabwe and Syria and Tunisia etc.

Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote
whisky-dave wrote

Strange that I haven't heard the usual cry of 'immigration is good for
the economy', which people tend to point out regarding people coming to
the UK.

Perhaps because that only applies to legal immigrants from other EU
countries.

Why would it only apply to legal immigrants from other EU countries ?

In many ways the illegals cost the govt much less because they can not
claim benefits and have to do whatever work is available otherwise they
wont have any income and so will do the work others don’t want to do.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:24:04 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote:

Why don't they ak the un to police the first country of entry rules for
them

If you're going to police "first country of entry", you need to have
some way to spread the load across all the EU once people are accepted.
Without that, those countries with Med shorelines are being asked to
take EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY. That's just unrealistic.

Quite. After all one of the most common reasons given for restricting
immigration to the UK is we're a small over populated island. Just imagine
what it must be like on Lesbos, etc.

And, if there is a fairer distribution across the continent, then the UK
will be taking more, not less. We currently have far fewer than "our
fair share".

The whole thing needs some proper thought. Why 'save' those asylum seekers
from a dangerous sea crossing if not prepared to give them a chance of a
decent life? Would make more sense to just return them to where they came
from.

As the Aussies found to be a very successful tactic.
--
bert

In article , Adrian
writes
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:56:42 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The whole thing needs some proper thought. Why 'save' those asylum
seekers from a dangerous sea crossing if not prepared to give them a
chance of a decent life? Would make more sense to just return them to
where they came from.

Can't easily do that.

To "return" somebody rescued from international waters to Libya (say)
would require them to either be demonstrably a Libyan national or for the
Libyan gov't to accept them.

And there isn't a Libyan government to accept anybody or anything...

Damn that whole international law mullarkey...
Return them to their port of departure.
--
bert

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 13 July 2015 12:41:03 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:56:42 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The whole thing needs some proper thought. Why 'save' those asylum
seekers from a dangerous sea crossing if not prepared to give them a
chance of a decent life? Would make more sense to just return them to
where they came from.

Can't easily do that.

To "return" somebody rescued from international waters to Libya (say)
would require them to either be demonstrably a Libyan national or for the
Libyan gov't to accept them.

And there isn't a Libyan government to accept anybody or anything...

Damn that whole international law mullarkey...

We could offer to police the Tunisian/Libyan border.

You'd have to police all their borders because the
illegals would just use the ones that aren't policed.

And the cost of that would be utterly insane.

Immigrants could be taken to Tunisia and shoved over the border into
Libya.

Legally they couldn't be, because there is no govt to agree to that.

They could then let the others know what's going on.

And they would just use the other borders instead.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Nightjar
"cpb"@ wrote:

On 13/07/2015 13:51, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Adrian
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 08:24:04 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote:

Why don't they ak the un to police the first country of entry rules
for
them

If you're going to police "first country of entry", you need to have
some way to spread the load across all the EU once people are accepted.

Presumably you mean, once they are accepted as genuine refugees? I
thought that once this had happened, they could go anywhere in the EU.
So they would do the redistribution themselves.

Not so. Once granted refugee status, they are foreign nationals within the
country that granted them asylum. They are not EU citizens and do not have
the right of free movement within the EU.

OK. In that case why aren't the `french preventing their entry from
Italy?

Because they dont have that level of border control at that border anymore.

"Adrian" wrote in message ...

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 19:12:56 +0100, Richard wrote:

One is more than "our fair share", they should be distributed evenly
along the north African coast.

Go and look at a map of the North African coast.

OK.
Back from looking.
And?

OK, did you notice the 1,200km of Algerian shoreline? Or the 1,800km of
Libyan shoreline?

Or just the 500km of Moroccan Med shoreline and the 1,100km of Tunisian
shoreline?

Perhaps it was just that you didn't really understand the implications
there?

Hire an Antonov 225 or even lesser aircraft. Full load of refugees. Fly
along coastline and evenly distribute cargo.
Perhaps it was just that you didn't really understand the 'distributed
evenly'.

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 13/07/2015 17:48, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:35:16 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

We could offer to police the Tunisian/Libyan border.

Given we can't even police our own - when surrounded by water - you
think?

460km of line across the desert, with one side of that line having no
effective government at all?
...

Which is probably why Tunisia is going to build a wall along that
border. How effective it will be is another matter.

Both the Romans and the Chinese built walls to keep people out -
successfully, I understand.

And then the world move on just a tad.

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 20:52:32 +0100, Richard wrote:

Hire an Antonov 225 or even lesser aircraft. Full load of refugees. Fly
along coastline and evenly distribute cargo.
Perhaps it was just that you didn't really understand the 'distributed
evenly'.

True. I didn't think you were suggesting mass murder.

On 13/07/2015 19:02, charles wrote:
In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
On 13/07/2015 17:48, Adrian wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:35:16 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

We could offer to police the Tunisian/Libyan border.

Given we can't even police our own - when surrounded by water - you
think?

460km of line across the desert, with one side of that line having no
effective government at all?
...

Which is probably why Tunisia is going to build a wall along that
border. How effective it will be is another matter.

Both the Romans and the Chinese built walls to keep people out -
successfully, I understand.


Both of which required large garrisons and, if they had a military
purpose (the purpose of Hadrian's wall is disputed - it may have been a
customs control measure or even just a symbol of the power of Rome) it
was to resist attacks by marauding bands, not infiltration by individuals.

--
Colin Bignell

On Monday, 13 July 2015 17:11:26 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 13/07/2015 13:52, whisky-dave wrote:
...
Strange that I haven't heard the usual cry of 'immigration is good for the economy', which people tend to point out regarding people coming to the UK.

Perhaps because that only applies to legal immigrants from other EU
countries.


Pity they don't explain that at the time regarding 'legal' immigrants.
But I've never seen the term legal immigrants used ONLY the term immergration is used.

In article ,
Nightjar cpb@ insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
Both the Romans and the Chinese built walls to keep people out -
successfully, I understand.


Both of which required large garrisons and, if they had a military
purpose (the purpose of Hadrian's wall is disputed - it may have been a
customs control measure or even just a symbol of the power of Rome) it
was to resist attacks by marauding bands, not infiltration by
individuals.

Perhaps they didn't have a B&Q in those days where you could pop in and
buy a ladder?

--
*I don't have a license to kill, but I do have a learner's permit.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 14/07/2015 11:00, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 13 July 2015 17:11:26 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 13/07/2015 13:52, whisky-dave wrote:
...
Strange that I haven't heard the usual cry of 'immigration is good for the economy', which people tend to point out regarding people coming to the UK.

Perhaps because that only applies to legal immigrants from other EU
countries.


Pity they don't explain that at the time regarding 'legal' immigrants.
But I've never seen the term legal immigrants used ONLY the term immergration is used.

It suits some people to lump together those from other EU countries
working here legally, asylum seekers, refugees and illegal immigrants
under one all-encompassing title.

--
Colin Bignell

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:55:15 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

Pity they don't explain that at the time regarding 'legal' immigrants.
But I've never seen the term legal immigrants used ONLY the term
immergration is used.

It suits some people to lump together those from other EU countries
working here legally, asylum seekers, refugees and illegal immigrants
under one all-encompassing title.

Or, perhaps, legal migration is a bit of tautology, since it's all that's
left once you discount illegal migration.