Subscribe
Notify of
guest
148 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
X

The real question should be is why the UK doesn’t already have security apparatus in place to secure our ‘sea border’.

Every other nation in Europe has, we have next to nothing.

glyn wilson

BECAUSE WE ELECT TRAITORS TO LORD IT OVER US AT OUR OWN EXSPENSE WHILE TOTALY INGNORING OUR WISHES,, GET IT!!!!.

RichardIC

Why do people who mis-use the word “traitor” always seem to get their caps lock stuck on?

X

How is he misusing the word?

Jon

i would suggest the difficulty comes when you use the world traitor, without clearly defining what they are a traitor to and why.

Remember the ruling classes of this national, have aways had distinct and separate agendas to those they rule and do consider themselves separate.

So their actions could be perfectly congruent to one group (the neo liberal owners of capital and production) and yet seem treacherous to another ( working classes)

or they could just be incompetent poodles.

Meirion X

You mean an ex Sec. Of D. surname beginning with letter H? Or Tory one’s since 2010?

X

6 down votes for what a question?

Jon

Don’t give to sad bullies the pleasure, ignore them.

andy reeves

target practice

andy reeves

only kidding

Meirion X

Who are you referring to?
Any clue, without naming?

Stephen

They are not “migrants”, they are illegal immigrants, call them what they are. They have zero right to be in our country, by law they have to take refuge in the 1st safe country. We can’t be too soft on illegal immigrants or it will only encourage more.

The U.K. has already allowed more than enough immigrants in by now, a few and no one would have been bothered but it has went way beyond that by now, we can’t keep letting more in forever. It creates divisions in a country where previously there was none, also we end up with underage girls being raped, terror attacks, etc.

We should try to come to an agreement with France if necessary, also invest in more boats and U.A.V.s if they are needed to free up our Navy.

Sami timms

A lot of them have been put up in hotels to the expense of the taxpayers.

X

It’s not just hotels though. It is the cost of “accommodating” through out the rest of their life. Never mind extra costs say if they break the law. Which in a way they already have done.

Steve smith

For the record, there is nothong illegal about getting in a boat and gping across the channel.

There is nothing illegal about coming to the uk and applying for asylum.

There is nothing illegal about what they are doing.

What is illegal is if they cross the channel and then DONT apply for asylum.

4th watch

Plainly we are under the Globalist agenda which seeks to destroy the independence of nations.

Mick Nicholson

Almost all of the legal rules described here were in English law before they ever became part of any international law, treaty or convention.

Jon

The ruling classes have aways been globalist and used populations a pawns. Look at how intertwined the European aristocracy and royal families became. The new global elite of superrich (sovereign individuals) essentially use the same model.

Jon

I’m not making a judgement or some form of communist statement. it’s a simple fact of history that ruling classes have always been internationalist and had more in common with each other than with the population of the countries they rule.

it was such with historic elites and is the same now with the super rich elites of today’s world.

John Clark

Absolutely Stephen, you claim legitimate asylum in the first safe country you arrive in.

From this point on you are an economic migrant.

I don’t blame them, despite all the soft left wing Guardian readers claiming “we’re doomed” in the UK, many of these migrants have the UK squarely in their sights and will risk their lives to get here…..

This crisis was massively escalated by Germany and the EU’s open door policy …. Funny how so many of them ( usually young men) go through the EU’s front door, out the backdoor and jump the stream to get to our back garden!

It’s an EU problem and we should absolutely stop and turn round the boats before they reach British waters.

Failing that, medical attention and return to France on the Eurostar.

Something different

How many asylum seekers should
the UK take in each year? What are the main negatives to the country and what are the benefits?

Fat dave

The real issue here is the prejudice of the author. An airborne asset covers more area and at a greater speed, offering more support than any surface vessel could possibly do. The use of an A400 was perfect because it overs overwatch, not solely intervention.

its another credible argument against the RNs obsession with obsolete aircraft carriers. Sell the carriers now and Save the RN (from itself)

Duker

The use of an A400 was perfect”

yet it is exactly why you dont like aircraft carriers, expensive and large with high running costs and designed for a single role not suited for a range of tasks.
‘perfect’ might be the King Air based surveillance aircraft or those of similar size.

Gunbuster

“The use of an A400 was perfect because it overs over watch, not solely intervention.”

In reality an LPD or a Carrier would be ideal but very costly for this work. At sea platforms providing 24/7 sea boat and aviation facilities .Refueling facilities for rotary wing aircraft such as a Merlin , Wildcat or even Coastguard helos all of which have surface search radar and EO systems. With an LPD you would get at least 8 LCs able to be deployed out the back with the LCUs having a range of 300 miles each and the ability to act as mother ships to smaller RIBs ( See London Olympics cover of the waters off of Weymouth during the Regatta) Command and control facilities. Medical and humanitarian care facilities onboard.

Go on…I’m sure everyone is dying to know what intervention an A400 can offer?
Push out a life raft over the ramp perhaps?
Land on water in its super secret sea plane mode that nobody knows about?

Stu

I agree with your principle that we need a presence on the water (not just flying above it) but there’s no need (in the channel) for a carrier or LPD. We’re only talking 30ish miles of sea here which on a clear day you can see one side from the other. Aircraft can be based on land to support surface vessels intercepting the boats.

TrevorH

If a Catalena flying boat can find the Bismarck, then I don’t see why something similar cannot be used in the channel. It surely cannot be expensive to monitor such a relatively small area of sea.

The idea that the “problem” is ours according to the French is quite self serving from them. They came to France and theirs is the issue to be dealt with. If they are coming via Spain or Italy then it’s France’s job to secure their own borders.

Boats and their passengers who illegally leave France should be intercepted by us and clearly sent back to France.

Duker

The Catalina didnt ‘find’ the Bismarck all by itself, it was a Swordfish equipped with ASV that made the final detection after the Bismarck turned towards France for repairs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASV_Mark_II_radar#ASV_Mk._II
The modern equivalent would be a drone over the channel sending its information to shore base and patrol vessels in the Channel

X

How can A400 intervene? It can’t. There is limit to what aircraft can do in policing roles. Man lives on the surface planet and that is where he has to be dealt with. Even helicopters are off little use.

Do you mean the A400 or an ‘aircraft’? How much speed do you need to cover a rectangle roughly 12 or so nautical miles square?

ATH

I would consider my self a supporter of air power both RN and RAF, but I don’t think the A400 is in any way an appropriate aircraft. The same goes for the P8.
Of what we have on hand the RAF and coast guard king airs are I my opinion the best aircraft for the job.

Daveg

Islander / defender possibly even better if you want the military involved….

Mike Critchley

An A400 “perfect” .Ha ha. A light aircraft from a Kent flying club could have done the same job at far less cost …One A400 and another aircraft to take the all important photo simply a PR stunt….

Jon

Yes but what does the air asset then do. The only air assists than can do anything other than locate and report are rotor assets and they are very limited by: endurance ( time and range), capacity and weather conditions. Boats are the best assets for any form of intervention on water….that’s why the RLNI has the lifeboat in its name and not lifeaircraft.

Ian

Unusually well connected on this issue. Multi faceted challenge. The sight of ‘migrants’ fleeing the EU to Brexit Britain is a thing, for sure. Despite what some would have us believe, we’re still seen as a beacon of hope, tolerance, law and order whilst other countries game the system. France & Belgium are at the heart of the problem. They simply do not want the migrants, so they are gaming the UK. They are willing to sacrifice their own coastal communities who are suffering greatly from very large numbers of undocumented migrants so they can ignore the problem and hope they all cross the channel to the UK. So many coastal towns and inland all the way down to Brussels have parks and large areas that are ‘no go’ due to ‘blind eye’ migrant communities. These communities are protected and managed in many cases by serious and organised crime syndicates. Don’t be guilted – this is human trafficking on a grand scale by crime lords, with an EU nod and a wink to pass their problem onto the Brits.

TrevorH

I’m sure you are right about human trafficking. France and Belgium should stop subverting their own laws. As such we have every right to send back illegal (economic) migrants.

Phillip Johnson

It would be interesting to know if the MOD was reimbursed for the cost of the support provided?
In any event anything more than a King Air in the Channel border security role was a waste of taxpayers money. It smacks of a government unprepared and using MOD assets to cover up the fact.

TrevorH

If this is humanitarian aid it should come from the foreign aid pot.

Sam

Up until the 1960s we had the Royal Navy Coastal Forces…they would have been a much better choice for this kind of work. Sadly however they were scrapped….we really need them back – they could defend the UK and free up the Royal Navy proper from home patrols.

David Nicholls

I would have thought the Army’s Watchkeeper drones would have been ideal? Excellent optical turret, very high definition radar (25km range?), 16 hour endurance and allowed to operate in civil airspace? There are also lots of “spares” (30 in storage)

Cam

Maybe someone should let the government know we have these assets and could use them! They probably don’t even know Knowing them lot!!

Steve

To me the cost of sending anything is totally disproportionate with the benefit, especially as it doesnt’ actually stop anyone crossing as we can’t just sink the boat with the people onboard and cant’ send them back to a warzone (Geneva convention and well general morale expectations)

However, my question is can the watchkeepers be multi controlled (many UAV controlled by one crew) as all they would be doing is using optical search abilities which would require someone at the other end sitting endlessly staring at a computer screen.

I also assume their view finder is not designed to be ultra wide angle, which would make covering the channel quiet difficult.

I also doubt their radar works over sea as it wouldnt’ have been designed for that also.

Stu

“can’t send them back to a warzone” – I had no idea France was that bad!

In all seriousness, don’t believe the press. Most of these individuals are not fleeing a warzone or persecution or torture or anything else used to tug on your heartstrings… if they were, they made it to France so they’re safe, why cross at all? They are economic migrants, they’re coming for better opportunities that the UK can offer; be that better jobs, education or benefits. I’d be all for that if they applied and came here legally.

As for the ‘costs’ – we’re housing, feeding and paying the legal fees for 48,000 illegal immigrants already. How much will the next 50k and the next and the next cost unless we get a grip on the problem.

Whatever the longer term solution, step 1 has to be; Capture & detain anyone crossing illegally.

TrevorH

You blithely say “government”. But the people who have these assets are the armed services. The govt. asks for a job to be done. Its the top brass and civil servants who know the detail. But do you trust them to be objective? They are all more interested in (no pun intended) peddling their own canoe.

Oftentimes the political “government” as well as we the people are ill served by organisations like the MoD.

Cam

But the government has to know what the hell to ask the MOD for.

Cam

We have to be firm and strong here and not pussy foot around to pander to the crazy leftists who want mass immigration! We should send these migrants straight back to France as soon as we have secured them on a boat, otherwise what’s the dam point of deploying expensive assets! So we can have a birds eye view of the Illegal immigration from France!! The EU should force France to stop this, but ultimately its a French problem they really need to deal with! They should deport all the economic migrants and charge the ones breaking the dam law!

Bob2

You seem to be suggesting that all these migrants have entered France as their first point of call. I doubt these migrants have crossed the med between Africa and France as this is the meds widest point.

Like the UK, France is having to cope with migrants entering it from other countries eg Spain and Italy. These countries do not want France to send them back.

Are you suggesting that France should take in all of Europe’s migrants?

One of the key reasons France is so active militarily in Africa is to stabilise countries and remove one of the push factors forcing people to migrate. Their actions in West Africa are have great success, with numbers of migrants crossing the Sahara from West Africa falling significantly in recent years.

If we really wanted to stop migration we could do more than offering the French just a few Chinooks to help them out (I doubt this would get much support on this site or UDJ as the usual comment about these Chinooks is “why can’t the French buy their own Helicopters. This is their problem not ours”).

Cam

No but the migrants are entering from France… and it’s a EU problem that they have to deal with, we arent in the EU for much longer so it’s actually not our problem, but I suggest we still help our patroling the Med and helping find a solution to the illegal migration problem, and even sending a few thousand troops to help the French in Africa Wouldn’t be a bad thing. I know we already have special forces operating but that’s not enough.

Bob2

I fully agree with you Cam regarding further intervention (soft and harder power) in Africa if the end game is to help the area prosper and reduce the push to leave.

Not sure I agree that this is specifically a problem for the EU and not us. That’s a bit like saying migration from south and Central America to the US is Mexico’s problem to deal with.

Migrants from Africa/Mid East/ Afghanistan are not looking to move to an EU country, they simply want to move to a more prosperous and more stable environment. They will continue moving through countries until they find this appealing environment. Unfortunately, for many reasons the UK ticks this box (language, shared history and international recognition being some).

D J

The Australian solution is known to work. Set up a detention cente, complete with razor wire, preferably on an island & keep throwing them in there till they stop coming. Never allow them to leave unless they agree to be sent back to the nation they are a citizen of or some other nation offers to take them. ie perminant detention, never to be released. Anyone found to be profiting from the illegal imigration is charged with people smuggling & later deported after their sentence is up (or sent to the detention centre). Boats stop very quick.

Mike Critchley

Surely one of our many unused cruise liners anchored round the UK coast could be used as the “island ” needed. Then sailed to a southern French port one day to disembark their uninvited guests?

D M

Indeed, deport them to South Georgia. Although the penguins might object. I see little point in deploying anything if all it’s going to do is bring them back here like a taxi service. Every other country defends its border why should we be any different. Patrol the border and don’t let them cross into British waters. If they do put them back into French waters. France is a safe country they should not be coming here. They have zero claim to be here. Consider it practice for when the navy need to start chucking french fishermen out after December.

Gareth

I agree with the idea in principle but there is the issue of capacity. A typical modern cruise liner has a passenger capacity of a few thousand, plus several hundred crew. So, for the sake of argument, lets assume we charter an out of use cruise liner, with enough accommodation for, say, 3500, including staff. Given that 4000 people have arrived this year alone, and it’s only August, then such a ship in 2020 would be full to capacity in about 6-months. If we’re prepared to have to charter an additional cruise liner twice a year for as long as is necessary then it could work. We’d also need to finance the staff and provisions cost of such a scheme which doubtless would be politically difficult.

Australia benefits I think from geography in that it is quite a bit farther away from their boat migrants point of embarcation than we are, and they have a few more off lying islands than we do to accommodate arrivals. I think the idea could work, but we’d need to be prepared both financially and politically to see out the problem. > 20 000 boat migrants arrived in Australia in 2013 for example. We’d have to be prepared to accommodate similar numbers and for the length of time necessary to deter people making the trip in the first place.

Geo

Australia solved the capacity issue (and a few others) by using other people’s islands, specifically Manus (in PNG) and Nauru, both of those countries received a sharp uptick in aid money as part of the deal of course.

D J

Plus Christmas Island (Australian external territory). Quite a few locals also got a job out of it as well I believe. Perhaps the Channel Islands? The suggestion of South Georgia further up may make building & staffing a bit of a problem. Shetlands? Faroe Islands? (autonomous area of Denmark). The actual capacity required was not that many. Hundreds, not thousands.

Geo

Not exactly. Christmas Island was built at the same time as half a dozen mainland centres (Woomera and RAAF Curtin to name two locations) Manus and Nauru came later in order to empty the others (including Christmas Island) out so they could be closed and the mainland centres are all now closed. Christmas Island, however, lives on, firstly as its a useful place to detain people that for one reason or another they don’t want on the mainland, and secondly because it’s close to the main staging ports the smugglers use so it a useful site for a processing centre.

D J

The mainland centres had to be closed due to legal actions. They changed the law to exempt external territories from these same legal actions & those in Nauru & PNG are exempt anyway as they are not Australian territory. Christmas Island is an external territory & as you say it is still in operation. Most new arrivals are via air from mainland Australia, being used as a staging post for normal visa overstayers where long running legal action is likely. The boats have stopped.

This is the reason I suggested the use of islands, preferably where existing laws are different or can be easily changed. The Channel Islands & the Isle of Man are two such possibilities. It is no different to the US using their military base in Cuba for many of those they rounded up in Afghanistan & the like.

D J

Do not use a cruise liner. They are floating 5 star hotels. You build a detention centre along the lines of a low risk prison. You build on an island, as it’s harder to escape from & easier to keep unwanted public (media) away. If you think the legal system may get in the way – use an island where mainland courts have less say & the locals will like the employment opportunity. You publish the facts loudly & you carry through. These are economic refugees & you can’t make money in prison.

You don’t allow them to return to France (unless they are a French citizen), without France (or someone’s else) agreeing to take them. Else, if they are from Syria, then it’s back to Syria (leave them there for a few months for ‘processing’ even if they agree to go back) or stay in the detention centre for years. You need to make the risk not worth the effort.Televise people arriving at the detention centre in handcuffs. Televise the outside of the detention centre, highlighting the mesh fence & razor wire. Very quickly the economic opportunities in France start to look much more attractive.

Cam

And another slap in the face of Britain! There’s videos of migrants laughing and joking while dropping their passports and ID into the English Channel whilst Illegally crossing, it made my blood boil! They know we will find it hard to deport them without their Passports ect!!!

Something different

Does it make your blood boil? Why would I employ you over harder working people from abroad? If you believe in capitalism then you should believe in the free market? If you’re a socialist you should look to the rich and redistribute their wealth to be used to help you out? Do you just not like people different to you?

RobB

indeed, there are a billion Chinese or Indians that will also work much harder than you. Why discriminate and allow just immigrants that crossed the channel? Why not let all one billion in? At the end of the day, a country exists to protect the interests of its own citizens. Not the interests of those of other countries. If you dont like that, you can always move to a country that failed to look after its own citizens. You know, a country like Syria.

Something different

What’s with the anger? I just don’t get why you are so angry at people who are trying to make a better life for themselves. Also nations were created as top down initiatives to further the interests of those in power (whether by design or accident) and not to protect the citizens per-se. In order to garner votes in democratic countries, governments nowadays have to listen to (to an extent) the people to stay in power but that wasn’t always the case.

Something different

Also arguments like ‘if you don’t like it you know where you can go’ I don’t think are helpful. We’re a democracy, we are permitted as citizens to disagree with govern policy. It’d be like me saying if you don’t like a particular policy you have to leave the country, something I’m sure you would rather not do

Ron Jeremy

You’re trying to convince right wing authoritarians to be open-minded and compassionate. I live in tRUmp country, a bit like living in Germany about the time of the Reichstag fire…take it from me, your mission is hopeless.

If these fine folks had their way, they’d machine gun and napalm the migrants- who, again, are only migrating because the ‘west’ destroyed their homes and turned their nations into hellscapes. Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. etc.

Reap the whirlwind and all that…

Ron Jeremy

Syria, ah yes- the country which the ‘west’ just destroyed. Who ever could have predicted the results?

Cam

They are entering illegally endangering everyone who has to save thems lives! They are economic migrants who have no right to live here..they have already broken the law, so let’s fill our county with them! It’ll be a disaster..we have grew by 5 million in the Uk over the past couple decades…. it’s too fast and too much. It impacts every brits life’s in all kinds of ways..

Something different

How has it tangibly negatively impacted your life?

Stu

Capitalism and the Free Market are not the same thing. I believe in capitalism. I also believe in the Rule of Law. I am not an anarcho-capitalist. To answer your question of ‘negatively impacted’;
House prices? We grew by a net 280,000 last year and now we have to build 280,000 new homes – coincidence? This uses up land, resources, carbon etc etc. at a time where our understanding of the need to protect the environment has never been clearer.

Increase in unqualified individuals lead to supression of wages for those toward the bottom of the economic ladder – it’s a provable fact. Add to this the existence of over 10,000 in modern slavery in Leicester alone (google it if you’d like) which has the knock on effect of putting legitimate manufaturers out of business & people legally in the UK out of work… principal cause: Illegal immigration.

They spend the UK budget which I have to contribute to and would rather be spent elsewhere:
NHS resources – and don’t say ‘the NHS is staffed by minorities’ because they entered the UK legally.
We have to pay Serco to house these people.
We have to pay to feed these people.
We are spending money deploying military hardware (as stupid as some think that is) to escort these people in so they don’t die.

If people would like to come here to make a better life for themselves, great. We need immigration to balance emmigration. I’m all for it. But they should do so within the law. If you don’t like the law, please feel free to campaign to change it. Entering the UK with little to no regard to the law of the land does not make a good first impresison and does not bode well that they will adhere to our other laws.

As for your previous assertion on the creation of nations, this was true in the past but there’s this thing called ‘consent of the governed’ – look it up. I hate to make assumptions but when RobB’s asserted that “a country exists to protect the interests of its own citizens”, I believe he was meaning that the first duty of any state is the protection of it’s own citizens. This is a concept largely agreed to by anthropologists as much as scholars of Jurisprudence. I suspect you knew exactly what he meant though….

Ron Jeremy

Humans, particularly uneducated religious fundamentalists, enjoy breeding like rabbits. Solution?

Ron Jeremy

Why not just use the boats for target practice and have done then? Would that make you warm inside?

Matt

I wonder how Russia, China or N.Korea would handle this on their home turf…
M

Gavin Gordon

I’ve a feeling that Russia has been handling this problem very well. Funding the people smugglers on condition no migrants head in that direction!

Cam

Hardly Gavin! The migrants don’t want to go to Russia because it’s a dump and much worse than Europe! Europe is a cash rich place they all want to milk.

Ron Jeremy

Well European countries did just destroy many of their homes and prop up disgusting dictators like MBS, so it’s a bit of karmic retribution and all that. And now, lick tRump’s boots as you did the last few bloodthirsty US White House occupants. How’s that working for you?

Ron Jeremy

Yes, let’s aspire to be just like Communist dictatorships. What high standards you authoritarians hold yourselves up to…makes you wonder why we didn’t just let Adolf have his way in 1939, I’ll bet he’s having a good laugh from the grave at the murderous attitudes expressed here. Bloody shameful lot.

Gavin Gordon

I’d like to know the primary objective for all these assets. As it’s reported, they look like the best form of H&S the gangs could promote (crossing is not dangerous, the UK is sparing no effort to make sure you make it).
One hopes that there is a comprehensive crime targetting rationale of which we are unaware. As the funders, we’d sure like to be advised for reassurance purposes.

Jim

The problem we have are indeed multifaceted.

The ability to offer asylum to an individual who is being persecuted for one of the asylum convention reasons is a torch that we should be proud that the UK holds high (even though many then accuse the UK of being racist, not nice etc)

The problem is that for many people living in poorer countries, unable to migrate legally to the UK they seek to use the asylum process as an alternative route – and we let them.

With an asylum claim you only have to prove your case to the lower standard of proof, you get an automatic (free) review of whether you should be allowed to remain in the UK on your family basis (ie get here and have a kid/get married), and by “loosing” your papers it is easy for your home country to not take you back. Why should they care for people who dont want to be there and it keeps their populations quiet if everyone knows you can simply leave and claim asylum. So people who would otherwise support asylum process have lost faith as they know the failed asylum seekers are rarely returned

Throw into the mix people smugglers (these are not traffickers, traffickers are scum, rather these are illicit travel agents making a lot of money), liberal judges / elite who wont have to compete for jobs or housing, MP’s from ethnic minority areas who want votes from these communities, SOLAS rules and France – why should we have the hassle of dealing with them when they want to go to the UK – and its a right mess.

So I am not sure what the MOD could add, other than improving the quality of the taxi service from France to the UK. This will thankfully save lives, however it will also encourage more to risk their lives on the journey – just like it did when all the EU ships sat just off the Libyan shore.

The answer is political

Joe16

It is a very difficult issue to sort, but exactly the reason why we have a foreign aid budget (in theory, at least). One of the key purposes of it is to stabilise the countries that many of these people are coming from (and some of them truly are terrible places, refugee status or not), and provide options for these people in their home countries at a fraction of the cost of dealing with the issue over here. Those who say we should cut the foreign aid budget should perhaps consider this, and rather call for it to be used as effectively as possible.
I think it’s also worth noting immigration is widely seen by economists as a good thing; there is a need for economically productive immigrants of all skill levels in certain quantities- particularly as we have an aging population. The word productive is key though. It’s also  
The problem that we have is that our government has massively underfunded the Home Office, and the number of agencies looking after our borders is a bit of a mess.
We don’t know how many illegal immigrants we have in the country because the HO has been rubbish at keeping any kind of reasonable track of them. What most people agree on though, is that Visa overstays are the biggest cause, not the people crossing the channel in boats (they just look better in the pictures). There aren’t any hard numbers for the UK, but about 50% of America’s illegal immigrants are Visa overstays and it’s a lot easier to illegally cross their southern and northern border. We can therefore assume quite safely that 50% of our illegal immigrants at an absolute minimum entered the country legally. It would be far cheaper and easier to keep a better eye on these people than the ones sneaking in by boat and suchlike, but it wouldn’t suit the political narrative so well and it would require proper and consistent long-term funding of government departments to keep track of them.
Also, we have the coastguard who only look after safety at sea; the border patrol who look after customs, immigration and some policing at both ports and at sea; the RN who look after national security, but also fisheries protection; Immigration enforcement who only deal with those who’ve already arrived; and UKVI who operates the Visa system. They are all funded from different places, run by different departments, and with the best will in the world isn’t going to operate as effectively as it could. We all know that it’s not, in fact, because they’re regularly reported on as not very effective and grossly under-funded. Whatever side of the fence you fall on illegal immigrants, dealing with the mess of departments that deals with it and properly resourcing them would be a nett benefit.

D M

How about deploying this.

http://gulfsecuritysafety.com/product_details/126/Marine-Floating-Barrier

Apparently the Greeks are talking about a sea barrier of some sort to stop migrants. It could be deployed in the most popular crossing points in the channel.

Cam

How about we mine the French beaches, that would also work.

D M

Yes but mine is more humane and we don’t need anyone elses permission.

Cam

Yeah it sure is more humane. But how many young English girls were treated humanely by immigrants, som were illegals!

Cam

You folks not like the truth or something?? Nothing I said was factually incorrect…

Ron Jeremy

You know that’s exactly what 80% of the ‘good Germans’ posting here want. They’d float out in a flotilla to watch the fun, like the Israelis watching Gaza burn.

Meirion X

Yes Interesting, I have also thought about microwave crowd dispersal devices install on vessels, aimed at the boats leaving French waters, might work.

Teves

What about using the old radars off type 23 mounted on two towers on the Kent coast 75 mile. Apart surely if they can pick baseball’s from 100 mile away they should find dingys in 30 mile of sea. Could base a couple of camcopters to go out and confirm with sightings for border control to go out and intercept much cheaper than sending a400 on daily basis.

Meirion X

Radar has only a limited range horizontally because of the curvature of the Earth. Even the cliffs of Dover are Not high enough to see across.
Also, rubber is transparent to radar, and rubber balls are too!

Bob2

Interesting rubber fact Meirion. I assume you can detect a cannon ball wrapped in rubber.

Meirion X

Yes, highly likely?
A boat engine can also be picked up!

borg

Might have been handy when the Spanish tried to invade.

Ron Jeremy

But then how do you justify the A400? Trappings of Empire must be maintained and all that.

Geo

The evidence is mounting that there should be a proper Coast Guard, based along American lines, incorporating several of the smaller organisations (and quite possibly inheriting the fisheries protection mission from the RN).

X

Over the last decade or two I have looked at this problem and there is no real easy answer.

At the moment I favour something along the lines of National Police Air Service. I would roll customs, inshore fisheries, and general policing into the service.
The RN will need more assets after December. It is obvious the EU isn’t going to go quietly.

The Rivers though ideal are too large and too few in number. There is need for range of smaller ships from 500 tonnes up to 1000 tonnes. These could carry National Police Maritime officers too.

There is no money and no will to do anything though.

You need to compare ourselves with all out Continental neighbours who all have serious resources devoted to policing their sea borders.

Germany has something like 8 customs cutters (two 1000 tonners SWATH) and 3 to 4 police ships (a new class is coming on stream) with cannon bigger than than the Rivers. The French have more boats patrolling Biscay than we have for our entire coast.

We are not some cul-de-sac at the edge of Europe. Consider that the Irish customs had to establish a marine unit because they had too many landings happening; the source of of most of these was the Netherlands.

The sea is both a wall and a road.

Sebastian

The german federal police has actually 6 OPVS plus 5 smaler patrolboats. For the german customs there are up to 10 new “Zollkreuzer” (SWATH) planed. But also there are 7 further coastguard vessels operated by other fedaralministerys.
Within die 12 miles border the statepolices have further vessels.

So there are surpricingly many coastguard vessels in german waters.

X

There FP vessels etc. but I went with only ‘law enforcement’ as it were.

You could also add in the ‘water police’ of the various coastal  Länder.



Cam

Actually there is money, we british are a rich nation, we could find the money if we really wanted to… For example sell a few miles of MOD land and that would be enough for a few 500+ ton boats. But they MOD are selling off so much land I’m starting to wonder if there’s enough left for our millitray….barracks and the like are being sold off everywhere… we are a multi trillion pound economy.

X

I agree it is more a matter of what the government chooses to spend money upon.

Cam

Exactly. What they priorities

D M

As more of them arrive pressure will mount. Councils in Kent are already saying they have no more room for the kids. In winter the sea is a natural barrier. In summer we will have to find an artificial way of replicating that barrier effect. The alternative is let them all come here, see how that goes down with the British public.

Meirion X

Yes a barrier will be needed in the summer along parts of the Channel.

Mike Minns

Judging by the majority of comments this won’t be popular opinion but hey ho.

If we want to be something approaching a world power we have a duty of care to these people, don’t want the duty then stop having an interventionist policy overseas and that includes selling arms operating overseas bases etc. However we’ll intentioned that makes us part of the situation that leads to illegal immigration, see Libya or Yemen for example.

The border force, navy or whatever needs to be properly funded and equiped to deal with its responsibilities in the Channel so that it can deal with these people humanely, process them and then those who have arrived illegally should be deported.
B ut here’s the rub, for those who say they should stay in the first safe country they reach, that is indeed the law but that places a huge burden on the Mediterranean countries. Either we take some of these people arriving or we contribute to support them. We have to take some of the responsibility as we were instrumental, along with others, in collapsing the Libyan state, for good or bad. The EU had a plan to share the burden but I guess that has now passed.

The UK is in a position where the first safe country a refugee, legal or illegal, is very unlikely to ever be here. So we need to forward base our response and our money in the countries most effected and shoulder our responsibilities.

Having lived in Australia when the scale of appealing abuses at detention centres like Nauru was revealed I’ll never belive they are the answer.

If we want to be a global power that means acting like one in soft power too. That doesn’t mean having no rules but it does mean being fair.

Bob2

Fully agree.

Shire boy

Hi Mike, you make some very valid points.

In regards to refugees should seek refuge in the first safe country they come to.The UN Refugee Convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other “safe” countries.

We have to take responsibility for our actions on the world stage. Also the amount of refugees we take in is considerably smaller than France and Germany for example.

Yes we do need to put in a fair system. But please lets not just believe everything we read in the press or from certain ex-MEP’s who are disparate to stay in the public eye.

Will O

“ If we want to be something approaching a world power we have a duty of care to these people”

No we don’t, we really don’t, we have a duty of care to refugees, & they’re not refugees.

Will O

However I agree with the UK Gov. though that we have a moral responsibility to help HK Chinese.
All 3,000,000.

Where we do have responsibilities we should absolutely live up to them, but if we just accept all comers from everywhere, we end up failing everyone, including our own.

Ron Jeremy

A sane, humane comment. Sadly much in the minority.

Grant

Sweden Border Force has 27 patrol boats yet we have 8?

Border Force need to invest in the equipments they need. I am sure there are some overpaid civil servants or badly thought through IT projects which could be chopped to help pay for this…

Ron Jeremy

Yes, but GB has Trident!!1

DaveyB

My thoughts at solving the problem could be construed as being very right wing, but I also think it is fair.

If the migrants want to come to God’s country and stay, then they have to prove themselves and therefore earn the right. In some ways it’s a bit like the Roman system. Where you have to do a minimum of 5 years service for the State before you can be considered as a citizen. To that end, there are a number of requirements to be put in place first. The first is a national identification card that is mandatory to be carried at all times. The second are internment centres that are properly funded and controlled.

This is so that people who have been picked up have a choice they either do 5 years community service or go back – simple! During this time they must learn our language and culture. Some may see it as a form of slavery, but both parties get something out of contract. To make sure people don’t simply disappear, they are tagged with a tracking bracelet.

We make it known World wide that we will be running an open border, but then show what is required to become a citizen of the UK.

d74

A view from a distant french.

Report your border from Calais to Kent.
Illegal immigrants wanting to go to Britain are a matter for the authorities in Britain.
Going on like this, we become prison guards for your own benefit. It’s a morally damaging situation for us. I’m not informed enough to believe that you’re paying all the costs involved in Calais.You pay at least a little bit, though.

And then, let’s keep smiling. Remember, French Navy does not sink ships, except its own.
Another joke? Calais as Gibraltar.

Cam

It’s also crazy how these illegals are in hotels all over the nation and free to wander around the towns and city’s!! They hang around in gangs of young men and the women in the towns they are put up in are scared! And I don’t blame them, gang rape has happened all over Europe by the illegal migrants. Again this is a fact, but no doubt I’ll be voted down because people dont like facts!!! Lots of these men only really see fully covered muslim women in their nations so imagine a hot day in England with our women on show! I Gaurintee there will be problems soon.

Merlot

… and relax. Fresh breeze and white caps in the channel today.

Rob N

Simple solution to this – do not allow Political Asylum to be claimed in mainland UK. They should only be able to claim at an overseas embassy.

It is the weak Government policy on this matter that has created this problem. Now they want the military to solve their problem for them.

Of course the French should stop them on their side but they are only too happy to let them leave France and do not try and stop their boats.

D M

Sadly today one of them has been found drowned. We cannot afford to be soft about this. If we are more we will come and more will come unstuck. By throwing themselves into the channel they endanger themselves and everyone involved in rescuing them. It is incredibly selfish. Put up a sea barrier and return them straight away to french waters. They have a legal duty to look after them. Instead they are allowed to roam around and attempt to cross the channel. Which the french seem happy to allow because it suits their political narrative.

borg

Posting this thread might just bring out the racists and apologists views. Rather predictably.

borg

Well, at least 3.

D M

Oh dear.

borg

Which are you ?

borg

See, no reply to that question, just a downvote. You remind me of someone on the UKDJ site. Can’t quite put my finger on it though, DM hmmmn

borg

Dan mate, stop it now.

Something different

Genuine question, why are people so concerned about these migrants? How much do they cost the economy each year? Are you worried about their impact on the culture? Do you think they will compete for jobs, and if so, which roles?

Rob N

For a start they are breaking the law by not travelling to the UK by legal routs and process. They are endangering themselves and those involved in their rescue. In addition the are trying to cross the worlds busiest waterway.

The fact is if tgey wish to come to the UK there is a legal safe way they could do this but they choose not to do this….

Rob N

P.S. my father was a refugee from Hungary in 1956 but he came to theUK legally and became a British national. He did not climb into the back of a lorry or crowd into a small boat and play chicken with vessels in the channel!

Something different

If they were entering the UK legally would you have concerns then?

Rob N

No – if the UK allows them in, no problem. I still think asylum claims should only be accepted via Uk overseas Embassies. This would lessen the attraction of coming to the UK without due process. Those who come to the UK without the countries sanction should be sent back to France. in fact if they intend to clam PA they should do it in the first EU country they came to. Those are the EU rules. However the fact that there is a rush from France shows the EU is not following its own rules.

X

You need to get on the internet it will answer all your questions. 🙂

Something different

Enlighten me

X

This covers the basics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

Something different

Yes, yes, very funny

X

Unless you out to troll everything you need to know about the costs and the impact online.

Something different

Well I’ve seen mixed information about the relative costs, I’m more interested in what people’s perceptions are of migration. As I said, in your view, what are the pros and cons of migration.

X

Perhaps if you proffered your views first and then others would see you are open to genuine debate. Online these days is a low trust environment.

borg

Online debate these days is pointless mostly, just look at this site, most folk are just posting rubbish on a site that is pretty much rubbish unless you are a member here. I came here to help “Save the Royal Navy ” As I spent a fair few years of my life serving. WTF is happening here ?

Ron Jeremy

If these people were white and worshiped the right Sky Fairy, and spoke the King’s English, most of the folks here would think a lot differently about the migrants…

Jim

Each child costs in excess of £50,000 per year. This figure does not include cost of education or healthcare

Something different

The GDP of the UK is £2,210,000,000,000. The UK population is expected to peak by 2063 and decline after that date, a population trend likely to be seen across the developed world. The net fiscal impact of immigration is estimated to be +/- 1%. Perhaps there will be short term competition to jobs and public services which means a limit should probably be in place to avoid deleterious effect on the existing population unless a completely free market approach is taken. That said the long term benefits to the country in terms of keeping the population size buoyant may out way short term negatives.

However, I think this issues goes beyond economic self interest. At the crux of this matter is how much of an humane approach we are willing to take to people who, in a best case scenario, are willing to risk their lives and cross seas so they can make a better life for them and their families thus showing how terrible conditions must be at home. However, there will be others fleeing war, persecution and possible death. These migrants ar people with feelings, fears and aspirations. At a basic altruistic level, if these people are admitted into this nation we could take care of them, provide safety and opportunities to further themselves and wider society, and they are likely to live longer and be happier. Would be able to go to a person, look them in the face, see the years of toil and suffering and say NO, go home, face possible death or at least suffering? If this is about fairness, then we, as an outward looking power, should be able to do our bit.

Meirion X

If the UK had the GNP per capita as Singapore, the actual GNP would be Double of what it is now. And without doubling the human waste!
So the UK could reduce its
population a bit and still have significant higher GNP.

I very much think, the refugees should stray put in their own countries and make and rebuild them much better. An example is Sudan, the old regime has been ousted, and it is now in transition to democracy. It just needs patience!

Jim

I very much think, the refugees should stray put in their own countries and make and rebuild them much better. An example is Sudan, the old regime has been ousted, and it is now in transition to democracy. It just needs patience!”

This is very true, the UK population only has it’s rights because our forefathers fought for them.

However, most asylum seekers are actually economic migrants looking for a better life – and who can blame them. Many in their home countries are seeing their friends leave, head to Europe and then sending vast sums of money home / returning later as wealthy individuals.The problem lies in the EU (and UK) countries being very soft in removing failed asylum seekers. Partly this is due to guilt following the second world war massacre of the Jews and partly due to sectors of the population actually wanting to change the make up of society

But most are economic migrants, genuine refugees are normally too poor to make the journey.

Syria – everyone can understand its a hell hole
Yemen – its a humanitarian disaster
Libya – wern’t we against the gaddaffi forces, whose supporters now claim asylum
Eritrea – one of the safest countries in Africa. If you leave illegally you have committed treason, but most eritreans are happy to return, and if you pay 2% of your foreign earnings its all good
Pakistan – cant afford to join my family legally so I will pretend to be gay or have an out of wedlock relationship with the person I am actually arranged to be married to.
Iran – economic downturn due to sanctions, so I will pretend to be Christian.
Sudan – I have a university degree from the top university in Khartoum, but I will pretend to be from a refugee camp
Nigeria – I have been funded to come to the UK and left my kids there, but my family want to commit FGM on my kids
Kuwait – Honest, I’m not Iraqi!

But its amazing how as soon as granted asylum they all get passports. I wonder where they want to go to?????

Meirion X

You are right Jim, there is always an excuse for something!

X

Often the first thing they do is go home on holiday.

X

Working in the sphere I should know. But hey ho on this site a down vote is an indicator of fact or honest opinion on this site.

Jim

Yep – use their UK passport to travel to Turkey and then their (previously unobtainable original) passport to travel the final leg into their home country

Something different

What about those people in commonwealth nations who’s forebears fought for the empire?

Ron Jeremy

They are the wrong color, and worship the wrong sky fairy.

X

I have been putting off replying to that, but it is the biggest load of b*ll*cks I have ever read on this site by some margin. And for this site that is saying something.

Something different

You may disagree x with but may I suggest that you should be polite in your response as this is merely a debate. Also you don’t use evidence or argument to support your view point. I’m also wondering why there is so much anger against migration. These are individuals who are either trying to find a better life (if you were in their shoes wouldn’t you do the same) or are fleeing persecution. I’d be more inclined to consider a rational dis-passionate response (which in fairness some have done which I have no issue with) along the lines of ‘ I have every sympathy for migrants as individuals and sometimes there plight is terrible but the economic and social costs are XYZ which means that migration has to have limits etc…).

Last edited 10 months ago by Something different
Something different

Worth remembering:
‘ Under international law, people have the right to seek asylum in any country they arrive in. There’s nothing to say they must seek asylum in the first safe country reached.
However, under an EU law called Dublin III asylum seekers can be transferred back to the first member state they entered.
Entry into the original EU country must be proven – either through fingerprinting records or an asylum claim.’

Jim

But even if the asylum seeker is matched to another EU country through fingerprints, the other EU country often simply refuses to take them – or delays until the time limit runs out.

It is amazing how the UK, the last country that asylum seekers to the EU are likely to arrive at, receive more Dublin 3 asylum seekers than they remove.

Reason being is that UK government plays by the rules

Ryan Brewis

What happened to Scimitar and Sabre? Or the Archer class? Only need like ten or twelve crew, fast, endurance isn’t necessary since they’re just trolling about within sight of two shores. Give them a drone or two, there’s a fix. Or the Islander/Defender patrol planes. Or the Beechcraft Shadows. Anything but bloody huge airlifters or a rare MPA asset.
Or am I just daft?

Ron Jeremy

Heh. I wonder if ‘The West’ is having second thoughts about ruining Iraq, Syria, and Libya now? Hope it was all worth it, idiots…here come the brown hordes, but who can blame them? ‘The West’ destroyed their homes and lives. Time to pay the piper….etc…