Fortress Europe?

Gogmilwr read this again.....

No one is forcing ANYONE to enter the UK illegally!
then this......

Nail - hammer interface. People who travel hundreds of miles to France, then wait for weeks or months until they get a chance to cross the Channel into England are NOT asylum seekers. If they were, they would stop in the first civilised country they rocked up in after escaping.
now rearrange ... on Nail Head the right hit you the ..... into the correct sequence, and repeat it back to sunoficarus and werewolf
BINGO, let's do that then.
I'm not even letting them past the docks mate, everyone is getting told to bugger off, EVERYONE, unless they are Irish or Icelanders and I don't give a stuff if they're worried that some bloke in Uganda hates them and wants to kill them because they are batty bois.
Fair enough, but Ireland and France would be legally obliged to accept you and have a vast array of laws and processes to stop them simply punting you back. Hence as I said in my post any Irish or Icelandic refugees have every right to apply for asylum in the UK and unless they are dangerous we would have no right to **** them off. Its when, lets say for the sake of being contemporary, an Egyptian gets smuggled into Libya, gets a boat over to Italy then gets the back of the truck express through France to Dover. He has made a decision to pass through two perfectly fine, economically stable EU democracies to come to the UK, as a genuine refugee he does not get the luxury of choice.
No, I'm saying let's do something to allow the checks to be carried out on all immigrants rather than those that happen to be caught out when they go through the current official method so that they can all be identified, checked and processed and then dealt with as opposed to spending loads more time and money running around the country investigating where they may or may not be how they may or may not have got in or what they may or may not be doing and then spending more time and money being unsuccessful getting people that failed to gain asylum status or no longer need to be refugees away from the country. I want an immigration service/border control that is able to do just that and not have to play catch up all the time.
What you have put there doesn't actually make any sense.

Could you try rewording it perhaps because as it stands you are saying that there are no checks on illegal immigrants unless they are chased up? As my daughter would say "Well - DUH!"

Can you explain exactly how you would change the system to ensure there are no illegal immigrants?

I don't think there is anyone who is seriously saying that proper refugees ie those who have had to leg it due to their family being eaten or whatever and who rock up DIRECTLY from their own country (Ugandans in the 70s spring to mind here) should be refused but even they should be ready to go home when the situation allows.

Economic immigrants or those who choose to leave their own country for gain are not refugees.


Last year August (2010) Damian Greene warned that "Britain is open for business but Britain has been too often a soft touch for illegal immigration. "Britain is no longer a soft touch. Those who have no right to be here need to be removed."....The immigration minister said there were "many failures in the asylum system" which needed tackling.
Real world check? Very few want genuine asylum seekers sent home, many more want illegal immigrants, crooks, and chancers, expelled or kept out. Anyone who doesn't think Britain's been a soft touch for too long, has mismanaged immigration, and pandered to multikulti idealism for a big diverse society, despite the implications of such lunacy, is a fool.
I don't think there is anyone who is seriously saying that proper refugees ie those who have had to leg it due to their family being eaten or whatever and who rock up DIRECTLY from their own country (Ugandans in the 70s spring to mind here) should be refused but even they should be ready to go home when the situation allows.


The bold above makes every sense.

If regimes change we should be making these people do their duty by their country in supporting its future.
No one had posed any direct question to me regarding that, at least none that I've read.

I don't necessarily agree with the stated concept which, I believe that I am free to do so. That isn't to say that I am "detached from reality" it is to say that I have my own beliefs, freedom of thought and philosophical perspective. Nor am I saying you, or anyone else must agree with me. All I've done so far is write what I may think about various things. I am arguing from the standing point that there are many, many people who are disallowed asylum status in one country or another which, does not necessarily mean that they are not in need of asylum. If they cannot go back home then they must move on and if they are denied a legal way to do so then what is left?

If there were a civil war in the UK next week and I was being persecuted here I may be off to Ireland or France and if they say "No" or "Non!" then what am I meant to do if I can't come back here for fear of being incarcerated due to my name, gender, nationality, political perspective or racial background or whatever other excuse someone has for wanting to kill me and my family? I'd have to move on.
There is about 7 Billion people on this planet now. Almost all of them live in countries that are not as well-off as the UK. How many should we let in?

There is a huge camp in France, right next to the Chanel tunnel. This camp contains a bunch of people trying to get to Britain. Are they in fear of their lives in a dangerous country? Or do they want to milk our welfare system? What say you?
Europe may become a fortress, but at the moment it isn't. People still want to emigrate here, so I suppose we ought to feel flattered. However, as has been pointed out, life in Europe isn't always an easy option. I wonder if we will see the local councils of eg Leicester or Birmingham brought down by mass protests by disgruntled immigrants, reflecting recent events in Tunisia and Egypt. Then again probably not, because if they make the UK collapse that way, then their benefit payments will stop.
Time for a few definitions. Thanks to the Beeb:
"Asylum seeker

In the UK an asylum seeker means someone who has made a formal application for asylum, and are awaiting a decision about their status. If their application is accepted, they become a refugee. There is no such thing as an 'illegal asylum seeker'. By law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum and remain in the UK until a decision on their application has been made.

The United Nations also defines an asylum seeker as someone who has applied for protection as a refugee and is awaiting a decision about their status. But they also use a more general definition of asylum seekers as people who move across borders in search of protection.


A refugee is a person who has been granted permission to stay in the UK under the terms of the 1951 Refugee Convention because of a well-founded fear of persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a social group.

Exceptional Leave to Remain/Humanitarian Protection

The term Exceptional Leave to Remain is still widely used even though it was replaced by the term Humanitarian Protection in April 2003. It is a status given to somebody who cannot be classified as a refugee under the UN definition, but for whom it would be very dangerous to return home. They are granted permission to stay in the country, usually for three to four years. After this period their status is actively reviewed.


There is no legal definition of �immigrant� in the UK. Generally, the term immigrant is used to refer to someone who leaves their country of origin to settle permanently in another country, usually for economic reasons.

For example, someone who comes over on a work permit or somebody who comes to live with their British spouse, would be classed as an immigrant.
My bold ...

Under those definitions, i don't see anyone from Ireland or Iceland fitting the bill. Northern Ireland is different as it is already a part of the British Isles. Those who feel threatened be they Catholic or Protestant are perfectly able to move to the mainland and i would think do not qualify for asylum or legal help as it is the same as moving from Brixton to Surbiton - your choice to move about your own country as you wish at your expense.

The biggest problem with asylum seekers is what to do with them whilst we process their applications. Also, how do you determine if they could have moved to another location in their own country where it might be safer ?

My personal view is that we should only consider asylum seekers if they come from a country bordering our own by land or water. That means Belgium, Holland, Norway, France & Eire and by happy chance, none of those is in any serious termoil ! :)

The bit you (or your source) didn't mention is the "safe third country" which should mean that the UK should have very very few actual refugees.

I wonder how many there really are?
The bit you (or your source) didn't mention is the "safe third country" which should mean that the UK should have very very few actual refugees.

I wonder how many there really are?
Figures aren't easy to find (how surprising) but last year Somali asylum seekers alone were believed to number about 260,000.
Total figures must be in the millions.

This is a grapsh showing asylum applications between 1993 and 2008-
File:Asylumapplicants.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note that this is for applicants, its does not include the family numbers of those who apply, only the principal applicant. It doesn't include those who simply disappear once they arrive, only those who formally apply.

Migration watch MigrationWatchUK put the total figure of immigrants to the UK since 1997 as 3 million

Estimates for illegal immigrants (not asylum seekers) range from 725,000 (LSE Figure) to 1.1 million (Migration Watch figure)

Its fairly safe to say that the UK has over a million asylum seekers and illegal immigrants
I see Libya has threatened to let any amount of "refugees/asylum seekers" free passage through to the coast if the west don't keep out of it.

The Hungarian ambassador was called in in Libya on Thursday and was given the message that Libya is going to suspend cooperation with the EU on immigration issues if the EU keeps making statements in support of Libyan pro-democracy protests
The Daily Herald -Libya threatens to suspend EU migration cooperation

Frontex might need bigger guns?

Latest Threads