Britain gives

[saundra]

France 54million
To stop immigrants crossing to our shores
Im lost for words

[victor]

You have got it wrong Saundra--it is so they can supply more inflatables and lifejackets to help immigrants on their way.

It makes my blood boil ,why can't Border Force just two them BACK to France

ITV reporter saw a French navy ship towing a load of immigrants yesterday

[saundra]

Thanks for that Victor
Makes sense now

[cromwell]

The French are taking the mickey.
Part of the problem as I understand it, is the international treaties forbid "pushing back migrants".
We have to have due process. I'd have a court on every beach with Justice Cromwell and his mates saying "guilty" and firing them back to France.
Every law in this area is bent towards the illegal immigrant imo.

[Workingman]

I was reading an article on Sky the other day (can't find it now) saying that in the coming decades tens of millions of migrants will leave the tropics as they become unviable places to live and mostly head north.

This problem is not going away and will only get worse. The hordes will overcome and there will be wars.

[TheOstrich]

Sadly, Frank is right; these are not just economic migrants or political asylum seekers, they are increasingly going to be climate-change refugees.

I haven't a solution which is either humanitarian or viable, I'm afraid, although I suspect my response as Home Secretary would be to shell a French warship or two in the Channel if they're caught on camera towing inflatables up to the demarcation line, principally to show them we mean business and also to annoy Macron, which would be a double-win in my book. However, this would mean that Judge Cromwell wouldn't actually get any business in his pop-up beach courts from illegals - but I would respectfully suggest to His Honour that he might be better employed incarcerating the BBC and Sky reporters who have been going out to the dinghies and giving them both sustenance and directions. I'd call that "assisting illegal immigration" - which attracts a mandatory prison sentence with a minimum of two years, according to research on the web.

[Suff]

I was reading an article on Sky the other day (can't find it now) saying that in the coming decades tens of millions of migrants will leave the tropics as they become unviable places to live and mostly head north.

This problem is not going away and will only get worse. The hordes will overcome and there will be wars.

It began in the Horn of Africa around the millennium and has continued.

But the vast majority of these "migrants" are not escaping climate change. They are attempting to piggy back on our economy and services to side-step their own economic evolution. This does not fall within the scope of the international agreements which were created so that people displaced by war or famine would be turned away at the border of the country next door. It was never for, nor designed for, people who have funded themselves to illegally migrate several thousand miles across multiple countries, to get to the location which will give them the best chance to make their fortune.

If we want to find the refugees of war or famine, no issue, go to the countries next door and you will find the desperate and destitute, having lost all, no money, no mobile phones, little more than the few clothes they managed to take with them when they had to move.

Those paying criminal gangs do not fit into these laws.

However Denmark appears to be looking for a solution. There has been more than a little interest in that. It certainly would provide a deterrent if everyone who hits the shores of the UK is immediately deported to a facility outside the UK and not under UK law, meaning the UK courts could not force the UK government to bring them back. Also if the UK courts ruled that they were immediately released, they would be released in that third country, but only if that country approves. Final deportation would be from the third country, not from the UK and not under UK laws.

[victor]

If only

[Workingman]

Two different things, Suff.

The article was quite clear that these migrants will not be piggybacking on anything. They wil not be political refugees or economic migrants in the traditional sense, they will be the poor whose lands cannot produce enough to sustain them due to floods, fires, drought and the oppressive heat. Desertification is on the way for these people and it is already happening throughout the tropics in arid, semi-arid, and sub-humid lands. We see it around the Sahara, Sonora, Gobi, Kalahari, Namib, Patagonia and other deserts and it is getting worse - no part of the world escapes.

The estimate was for between 30-50 million people on the move annually from 2040.

[Suff]

There were already 2m on the move in 2000. Nobody believed me at the time unless they were already global warming aware.

I fully believe the 30m-50m.

But they are not the people who are arriving today. They can't afford it and the UK is not their target.

It is ever that the very real problems in the world are used to hide and obscure the problem of illegal migration by those who do have choices. Those who don't just stay and die.