Family & Relationships0 min ago
Almost 100,000 Illegals Stopped At The Uk Border.
33 Answers
http://
At least we do still have a border, that is one very good reason why we should leave the EU.
At least we do still have a border, that is one very good reason why we should leave the EU.
Answers
“…and these rules have to be adhered to by EU law in each country.” Yeah, right. All nations stick rigidly to the rules, don’t they? A million people have arrived in the EU as migrants this year (at least, that’s the number we know about). How are those people going to be denied the rights of all other EU citizens to move about as they wish? Even if they...
17:52 Wed 23rd Dec 2015
No it doesn't sem to have come to fruition, Zacs. But that was not for the want of trying. You suggested that there was no clown in the EU trying to force illegal immigrants on member states. Whilst I accept that the UK was not among those states (only by the Grace of God) the clowns are still out there.
The idea that individual EU countries can simply hand out citizenship and passports to large numbers of immigrants willy-nilly (as some form of threat) is false. Though each country may have different requirements for citizenship, they all have them, such as marriage, family relationship, a period of residence etc. and these rules have to be adhered to by EU law in each country.
http://
http://
The UK /Calais border is at Calais by special arrangement between the UK and France. As I have tried in vain to explain on here if we ever leave the EU that border will instantly revert to Dover. Same applies to the channel tunnel, at present that border is at the tunnel entrance in France, if we ever leave the EU that border will revert to the exit of the tunnel in the UK (Ashford ?), so all the migrants currently camped at Calais and the channel tunnel entrance will instantly get the right to travel to the border between the EU and the UK. Which will be Dover or the UK tunnel entrance/exit.
We will NOT be allowed to send them back , the French are very firm on that point, so we will have no option but to allow them in while we access their claim for asylum. We all know what will happen then !!!
That is for non EU residents.
Even if we leave the EU completely there will still be entry rights for European residents just as there were before we joined the Common Market. So residents of the EU will still be allowed in to the UK as temporary visitors. Once in they will do just as the non EU immigrants do now and apply for permanent residence. Do you know that over 80% of all illegal immigrants who apply for residency eventually get permission to stay?
I am very aware that there are a huge number of problems with the E U , but we are better off in and changing it from the inside than trying to change it from the outside.
We need to ensure that the UK is at the very heart of EU policy making to ensure that we get the best possible outcome for ourselves, just as the French and Germans do at present.
We will NOT be allowed to send them back , the French are very firm on that point, so we will have no option but to allow them in while we access their claim for asylum. We all know what will happen then !!!
That is for non EU residents.
Even if we leave the EU completely there will still be entry rights for European residents just as there were before we joined the Common Market. So residents of the EU will still be allowed in to the UK as temporary visitors. Once in they will do just as the non EU immigrants do now and apply for permanent residence. Do you know that over 80% of all illegal immigrants who apply for residency eventually get permission to stay?
I am very aware that there are a huge number of problems with the E U , but we are better off in and changing it from the inside than trying to change it from the outside.
We need to ensure that the UK is at the very heart of EU policy making to ensure that we get the best possible outcome for ourselves, just as the French and Germans do at present.
> Though each country may have different requirements for citizenship, they all have them
Which is why my post above said "over a number of years". The timeframe I had in mind was Germany accepting 1M migrants this year, versus the UK saying it would take 20,000 over five years. In five years, how many of this year's 1M German migrants would be eligible for a passport? So instead of 20,000 over five years into the UK, we could see 80,000 over five years, based only on this year's 1M German migrants.
> We will NOT be allowed to send them back , the French are very firm on that point
Maybe we could be equally as firm on them being sent here in the first place?
Otherwise, perhaps you could explain exactly how border relations between two countries could be so valve-like.
Which is why my post above said "over a number of years". The timeframe I had in mind was Germany accepting 1M migrants this year, versus the UK saying it would take 20,000 over five years. In five years, how many of this year's 1M German migrants would be eligible for a passport? So instead of 20,000 over five years into the UK, we could see 80,000 over five years, based only on this year's 1M German migrants.
> We will NOT be allowed to send them back , the French are very firm on that point
Maybe we could be equally as firm on them being sent here in the first place?
Otherwise, perhaps you could explain exactly how border relations between two countries could be so valve-like.
“…and these rules have to be adhered to by EU law in each country.”
Yeah, right. All nations stick rigidly to the rules, don’t they?
A million people have arrived in the EU as migrants this year (at least, that’s the number we know about). How are those people going to be denied the rights of all other EU citizens to move about as they wish? Even if they are not granted full citizenship (and I doubt very much that they will be denied for too long, regardless of the “rules”) they can still roam the Schengen Area and settle where they wish. The idea that a million people (and rising) can somehow be contained where they are “allocated” is utter lunacy.
Sorry Eddie but I must disagree with some of your points.
“We will NOT be allowed to send them back, the French are very firm on that point…”
The French will have no say in the matter. International law on illegal entrants is quite clear. They can be returned to their last port of call forthwith. Those arriving from Calais have no right to claim asylum in the UK. They lost it when they failed to present themselves to the authorities in the first safe country they arrived in. All it needs is for the UK to enforce the rules (which are the UN's rules and nothing to do with the EU). In any case the 2003 Le Touquet Agreement (for ferries) and the 1991 Sangatte Protocol (for trains) allow for juxtapositioning of immigration facilities in the UK and France on the cross channel routes and these agreements are not dependent upon our membership of the EU. It is doubtful that France would unilaterally tear up these agreements should we leave.
“…there will still be entry rights for European residents just as there were before we joined the Common Market”
Of course there will. The difference will be that we can turn people from other EU nations away if we wish. At present we cannot.
“…we are better off in and changing it from the inside than trying to change it from the outside. “
The biggest misconception of all. Been there, tried it (and still trying) and got sent away. The EU has no intention whatsoever of changing in any meaningful way. It is committed to ever closer political union and its policies will eventually see the end of individual nations. Even gaining dispensation from that stated aim has been largely rejected.
“We need to ensure that the UK is at the very heart of EU policy making to ensure that we get the best possible outcome for ourselves…”
The second biggest misconception. Between 2009 and 2014, 1936 votes were held in the European Parliament, and 576 of them were opposed by a majority of the UK’s 73 elected representatives. But of those, 485 were still passed – meaning the view of Britain being outvoted in 86 per cent of cases. This rises to 98 per cent in votes that cover budgets, and 92 per cent on constitutional and inter-institutional affairs.
The fact is that the interests of the UK and those of many of the other 27 EU nations are so diverse that this is inevitable. Couple this with the fact that the UK is one of the most underrepresented by head of population, under a system designed to increase the clout of small nations. There is one MEP for every 880,000 British voters, compared to one for every 70,900 Maltese. The EU average is one MEP for 486,000 voters. Only French voters are more underrepresented. British MEPs must either toe the line of large pan-european alliances that are committed to further political union or fruitlessly vote against legislation that they are unable to block. The UK has virtually no influence within the EU. Far from being “at the heart of policy making” it is being increasingly sidelined as those nations seeking ever closer union forge ahead by constantly outvoting our MEPs to secure their aims.
Yeah, right. All nations stick rigidly to the rules, don’t they?
A million people have arrived in the EU as migrants this year (at least, that’s the number we know about). How are those people going to be denied the rights of all other EU citizens to move about as they wish? Even if they are not granted full citizenship (and I doubt very much that they will be denied for too long, regardless of the “rules”) they can still roam the Schengen Area and settle where they wish. The idea that a million people (and rising) can somehow be contained where they are “allocated” is utter lunacy.
Sorry Eddie but I must disagree with some of your points.
“We will NOT be allowed to send them back, the French are very firm on that point…”
The French will have no say in the matter. International law on illegal entrants is quite clear. They can be returned to their last port of call forthwith. Those arriving from Calais have no right to claim asylum in the UK. They lost it when they failed to present themselves to the authorities in the first safe country they arrived in. All it needs is for the UK to enforce the rules (which are the UN's rules and nothing to do with the EU). In any case the 2003 Le Touquet Agreement (for ferries) and the 1991 Sangatte Protocol (for trains) allow for juxtapositioning of immigration facilities in the UK and France on the cross channel routes and these agreements are not dependent upon our membership of the EU. It is doubtful that France would unilaterally tear up these agreements should we leave.
“…there will still be entry rights for European residents just as there were before we joined the Common Market”
Of course there will. The difference will be that we can turn people from other EU nations away if we wish. At present we cannot.
“…we are better off in and changing it from the inside than trying to change it from the outside. “
The biggest misconception of all. Been there, tried it (and still trying) and got sent away. The EU has no intention whatsoever of changing in any meaningful way. It is committed to ever closer political union and its policies will eventually see the end of individual nations. Even gaining dispensation from that stated aim has been largely rejected.
“We need to ensure that the UK is at the very heart of EU policy making to ensure that we get the best possible outcome for ourselves…”
The second biggest misconception. Between 2009 and 2014, 1936 votes were held in the European Parliament, and 576 of them were opposed by a majority of the UK’s 73 elected representatives. But of those, 485 were still passed – meaning the view of Britain being outvoted in 86 per cent of cases. This rises to 98 per cent in votes that cover budgets, and 92 per cent on constitutional and inter-institutional affairs.
The fact is that the interests of the UK and those of many of the other 27 EU nations are so diverse that this is inevitable. Couple this with the fact that the UK is one of the most underrepresented by head of population, under a system designed to increase the clout of small nations. There is one MEP for every 880,000 British voters, compared to one for every 70,900 Maltese. The EU average is one MEP for 486,000 voters. Only French voters are more underrepresented. British MEPs must either toe the line of large pan-european alliances that are committed to further political union or fruitlessly vote against legislation that they are unable to block. The UK has virtually no influence within the EU. Far from being “at the heart of policy making” it is being increasingly sidelined as those nations seeking ever closer union forge ahead by constantly outvoting our MEPs to secure their aims.
seems that schengen is starting to crumble......
http://
http://
-- answer removed --
“…once in the EU they can move about, but that's because of the Schengen leaking borders. But this is not the same as these people being issued with passports and citizenship.”
To be pedantic, Khandro, the Schengen area has no borders, leaking or otherwise, but I know what you mean.
The EU will not tolerate for very long a million or more “stateless” persons roaming around the continent. They will not be thrown out (especially after Frau Merkel’s open invitation to all and sundry) and their situation will have to be formalised. This can only mean full citizenship with all the rights that bestows. There will be no “associate” citizenship with fewer rights – EU equality legislation will not permit it. I’m not saying a million cases will be dealt with by next month but dealt with, in the way I described, they will be and probably sooner rather than later. Just think for a moment - If what I describe does not happen the what else is going to happen to them?).
This makes the UK’s refusal to participate in the ludicrous “quota” scheme absolutely meaningless. This country is struggling to provide adequate housing, education and healthcare (let alone spending money) for the people already here. Any country in its right mind would not think twice when faced with these crises to limit the number of people allowed to settle here( because it is principally the numbers of people that have cause the situation and little else). There is no alternative to tackle these problems but for the UK to leave the EU. Anything else would be madness.
To be pedantic, Khandro, the Schengen area has no borders, leaking or otherwise, but I know what you mean.
The EU will not tolerate for very long a million or more “stateless” persons roaming around the continent. They will not be thrown out (especially after Frau Merkel’s open invitation to all and sundry) and their situation will have to be formalised. This can only mean full citizenship with all the rights that bestows. There will be no “associate” citizenship with fewer rights – EU equality legislation will not permit it. I’m not saying a million cases will be dealt with by next month but dealt with, in the way I described, they will be and probably sooner rather than later. Just think for a moment - If what I describe does not happen the what else is going to happen to them?).
This makes the UK’s refusal to participate in the ludicrous “quota” scheme absolutely meaningless. This country is struggling to provide adequate housing, education and healthcare (let alone spending money) for the people already here. Any country in its right mind would not think twice when faced with these crises to limit the number of people allowed to settle here( because it is principally the numbers of people that have cause the situation and little else). There is no alternative to tackle these problems but for the UK to leave the EU. Anything else would be madness.
Latest Posts
Body & Soul1 min ago
Music2 mins ago
Body & Soul4 mins ago
Climate Change Robs Family Of Life...
ChatterBank19 mins ago
Crosswords29 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.