*** Official Putin Started Shootin' Thread ***

[oskar]

Ireland: 1800, so only 1750 more than us.

They have to layover in Stansted... so thousands of Ukrainians are getting off in the UK, take a look around, go: fuuuuuuck this shit, and catch the next flight to Dublin.

[OngBonga]

They're catching us up...

UK took 35k refugees last year, Ireland took 700. Save your preaching.

[OngBonga]

They have to layover in Stansted... so thousands of Ukrainians are getting off in the UK, take a look around, go: fuuuuuuck this shit, and catch the next flight to Dublin.

This would be funnier if you said they were arriving in Birmingham.

When I went to Dublin, I flew from Birmingham. Dublin is a wonderful, friendly city where you can walk around pissed and not have a care in the world. Within five minutes of arriving back at Birmingham New Street train station, there was someone waving a knife around. Welcome home.

[OngBonga]

I've finally found a source for the 50 refugees the UK has admitted. It is a pitiful number.

But with that said, it's ludicrous to compare the UK to Poland and other border nations. The UK is over 1000 miles away from Ukraine, and there's a sea separating us from mainland Europe. We are not a destination of choice because it is difficult and expensive to reach the UK compared to mainland Europe.

Ireland of course has the same issues, I can't confirm a source for the number poop quoted but it's still a pitiful number, such that if the UK was saying we allowed 1800 in, poop would still be saying it's not enough. Not sure why Ireland is doing marginally better than us, probably being an EU country makes it easier to arrive from another EU country.

The UK certainly needs to do more as this crisis deepens. We can and should help... by flying refugees in from Warsaw, Budapest, and other border capitals. We shouldn't be encouraging people to turn up at Calais where there are already severe refugee problems.

[Poopadoop]

what about Iceland?

You plan to just keep going down the list of countries in the world until you find one that's small and far away enough that it's taken fewer than us?

"What about Ecuador?" lol

[OngBonga]

You plan to just keep going down the list of countries in the world until you find one that's small and far away enough that it's taken fewer than us?

"What about Ecuador?" lol

No, it should be obvious that I was listing European islands. Maybe you're a bit too thick to pick up on that.

[Poopadoop]

it's ludicrous to compare the UK to Poland and other border nations.

It would be ludricous to compare us and ask why we aren't taking as many as Poland, I agree. It's not ludicrous to ask that if a relatively poor country like Poland can handle X hundred thousand, why can we only handle 50?

The UK is over 1000 miles away from Ukraine, and there's a sea separating us from mainland Europe. We are not a destination of choice because it is difficult and expensive to reach the UK compared to mainland Europe.

The main reason they would want to come here is family ties, or b/c English is their only second language. If they speak Ukranian or Russian though they can probably get by in Poland, the slavic languages are all fairly closely related. That said, it's hard to imagine only 50 out of a million would want to come to the UK.

if the UK was saying we allowed 1800 in, poop would still be saying it's not enough.

It depends on how many are trying to get here and how easy or hard we are making it. I can only assume since we've taken 50, we're not doing much to help those who do want to come. I've also heard things about U refugees with family in the UK getting the runaround over paperwork, sent back and forth from Calais to Paris, and basically giving the impression the UK is completely disorganised and/or unwilling to do anything for them (depending on how you interpret things). It's hard to imagine it all down to just incompetence though, given we've got Cruella Patel in charge of the Home Office. At least she isn't trying to drown them.

[Poopadoop]

No, it should be obvious that I was listing European islands. Maybe you're a bit too thick to pick up on that.

Ireland has a population of about 5 million. Iceland well under 1 million. So yeah, the islands you're picking are smaller and smaller and further and further away. But other than that, they're islands just like us.

[Poopadoop]

They're catching us up...

Yeah, well played. So this person thinks it's a brag that we haven't taken the absolute fewest in the entire world last year, and that makes up for the fact we've only taken 50 from Ukraine so far.

[OngBonga]

It would be ludricous to compare us and ask why we aren't taking as many as Poland, I agree. It's not ludicrous to ask that if a relatively poor country like Poland can handle X hundred thousand, why can we only handle 50?

Nobody is saying this though. Nobody is saying we can only handle 50. That's simply what we've taken so far. We're talking about 200k, let's see if that actually happens.

The main reason they would want to come here is family ties, or b/c English is their only second language.

Sure. Presumably, only 50 people have thus far proven their family ties to the UK, since this is the criteria we're currently applying. I don't think language is going to be an immediate concern though. Maybe if they need to settle then it becomes a problem, but if they're worried about language, then it simply makes more sense to remain where the bulk of the Ukrainian refugees are.

It depends on how many are trying to get here and how easy or hard we are making it.

I'm certainly agreeing with you that we can and should do more.

I can only assume since we've taken 50, we're not doing much to help those who do want to come.

Presumably there are no figures showing how many have tried. We're guessing here.

I've also heard things about U refugees with family in the UK getting the runaround over paperwork, sent back and forth from Calais to Paris...

Calais is a complete shitshow. It's basically a third world part of France, where the French are happy for unwanted migrants to gather so they can fuck off the England. If I were trying to get to the UK from Ukraine, I'd head to a capital city, probably Warsaw, but if I could get to Paris, that makes sense too. Going to Calais is stupid.

Ireland has a population of about 5 million. Iceland well under 1 million. So yeah, the islands you're picking are smaller and smaller and further and further away. But other than that, they're islands just like us.

I like how you think a larger population means we should allow a larger number of refugees. I'd say a larger population makes it more difficult, not less. We have a very high population density, especially compared to Ireland. We'll leave Iceland out of this because I was kinda just being silly with that, it's mostly a frozen wasteland and hardly an ideal location for refugees. But Ireland is a reasonable comparison.

Yeah, well played. So this person thinks it's a brag that we haven't taken the absolute fewest in the entire world last year, and that makes up for the fact we've only taken 50 from Ukraine so far.

700 over a year is pitiful. If that was the UK's effort, you'd be all over it. Ireland is an EU country, surely they should be doing more in your opinion. Right?

Right?

[Poopadoop]

World beating refugee management going on in Calais:

"Can't help ya here, fill in this online form and fuck off to Paris or Brussels."

[OngBonga]

fwiw, I don't give a fuck how many migrants and refugees Ireland allow into their country. It's their business. I have no idea what they can economically handle. I don't really know what we can handle either, which is why I try not to be critical of the numbers thrown around, at least when it's 200k and not 50.

We should certainly be sharing the burden with Europe. But it's obvious that border nations will bear the brunt, certainly in the short term.

What I do find interesting is that you're fixated with the UK. If you did a little more digging, you might learn that Poland are letting whit refugees in by the busload, while making black people wait. It's got to the point where Nigeria are advising their citizens in Ukraine to avoid Poland and head for Hungary and Romania. That's a lot more outrageous than a distant island dragging its heels.

[OngBonga]

World beating refugee management going on in Calais:

"Can't help ya here, fill in this online form and fuck off to Paris or Brussels."

Not sure why this is upsetting you. Paris isn't even that far from Calais, neither is Brussels. It makes sense for the UK to want Ukrainian refugees to avoid Calais, given that there are already huge migrant problems in Calais.

[Poopadoop]

700 over a year is pitiful. If that was the UK's effort, you'd be all over it. Ireland is an EU country, surely they should be doing more in your opinion. Right?

Right?

Like I said, it really depends on how many applications they get and how helpful they are in assisting those applications. If they're getting 10k applications a year and accepting 700, then yes they're being cunts. If they're sending battleships and jetskis into the Irish sea to deter refugees, they're also cunts. If they're making it difficult for Ukrainian refugees to get a visa by making them jump through a bunch of hoops, they're also cunts. But if they have reaonable policies, and are still only getting 750 applications a year and accepting 700 that's completely different obv.

I don't follow Irish politics so I don't know. They could be as open to refugees as anyone and just not get many applications.

It's also a bad comparison because they are a lot smaller. It's not about having empty space, as if the refugees could go and live in the woods somewhere. It's about having infrastructure, housing, roads, etc.. Otherwise the world could just ship all its refugees to Greenland and Antarctica. If you want to compare the UK to another country, pick one that's a similar size, like FRA, GER, ITA, etc. We're last on that list by a long ways, and have been for a number of years.

[Poopadoop]

What I do find interesting is that you're fixated with the UK.

I live here. What country should I focus on?

If you did a little more digging, you might learn that Poland are letting whit refugees in by the busload, while making black people wait. It's got to the point where Nigeria are advising their citizens in Ukraine to avoid Poland and head for Hungary and Romania. That's a lot more outrageous than a distant island dragging its heels.

Reductio whataboutismo.

[OngBonga]

If they're sending battleships and jetskis into the Irish sea to deter refugees, they're also cunts

Let's just clear one thing up.

What do you consider to be a greater evil? Migrants being refused entry to a country? Or people trafficking?

People crossing the channel is a huge problem. A very, very huge problem. You conveniently ignore me when I mention people trafficking. By insisting that the UK allows boatloads of people to turn up on the coast, you are de facto supporting people trafficking. That's an unavoidable fact.

So make you choice. Migrants on boats without documents means people trafficking, which means criminals exploiting migrants making a fortune.

[OngBonga]

Reductio whataboutismo.

Not really. The UK issue is a minor issue that you're politicising to throw shit at Boris and Patel. The Poland border issue is, apparently, actual racism happening in 2022. When it happens in USA, you're outraged and think this is relevant to the UK. Why is it not outrageous when Poland are racist?

[Poopadoop]

Not sure why this is upsetting you. Paris isn't even that far from Calais, neither is Brussels. It makes sense for the UK to want Ukrainian refugees to avoid Calais, given that there are already huge migrant problems in Calais.

Do you think these people are tourists on vacation? How do you know they even have enough money to get to Paris or Brussels?

Basically what we're doing amounts to trying our best to keep them out of the UK and make them someone else's problem for as long as we possibly can. It's just callous.

[Poopadoop]

Not really. The UK issue is a minor issue that you're politicising to throw shit at Boris and Patel. The Poland border issue is, apparently, actual racism happening in 2022. When it happens in USA, you're outraged and think this is relevant to the UK. Why is it not outrageous when Poland are racist?

It's 100% reductio whataboutismo.

The topic I raised is the UK's shitty response to the refugee crisis. Your contribution has been "yeah, but whatbout [insert whatever other country you can find a reason to criticise here]?" Rinse and repeat.

[Poopadoop]

Let's just clear one thing up.

What do you consider to be a greater evil? Migrants being refused entry to a country? Or people trafficking?

People crossing the channel is a huge problem. A very, very huge problem. You conveniently ignore me when I mention people trafficking. By insisting that the UK allows boatloads of people to turn up on the coast, you are de facto supporting people trafficking. That's an unavoidable fact.

So make you choice. Migrants on boats without documents means people trafficking, which means criminals exploiting migrants making a fortune.

It's irrelevant to the refugees themselves how they got here. Once they're here, they have to be treated as asylum seekers, not sent to some other country for "processing," or whatever they keep trying to do with them. When they're in the English channel rowing over here, they should not be met with a battleship to scare them back to France.

The people traffickers are scumbags, and if we capture people traffickers we should prosecute them, assuming there is even a law against it. What we shouldn't do is assume every man woman and child who arrives on a dinghy is themselves a people trafficker and treat them like a criminal, as that makes no sense at all. The people who've paid the criminals for passage to the UK are not themselves criminals.

The number of people who are crossing the channel in dinghies is a problem, I agree. But the solution is not to send out a battleship to steer them back to France. The solution is to enable them safe passage. It costs a lot less to send a ferry from Calais to Dover than to send a battleship out to patrol the Channel, so there can no whinging about costs.

[OngBonga]

Do you think these people are tourists on vacation? How do you know they even have enough money to get to Paris or Brussels?

They presumably had enough money to get to Calais. And if they get stuck there, then France needs to transport them to Calais.

If a bunch of people were stuck in Dover trying to get to France, and France was saying "go to London", and they were saying "we don't have the money to get to London", then you would, rightfully, argue that the UK has a responsibility to help get these people to London.

The UK are totally within their rights to insist on centralising the refugee issue. Otherwise people could just turn up anywhere along the French coast and demand the UK come get them. You're expectation of what the UK should do about people in Calais is unreasonable. It's France's problem, not the UK's.

Basically what we're doing amounts to trying our best to keep them out of the UK and make them someone else's problem for as long as we possibly can. It's just callous.

This might be true. But let's say we weren't doing this. We're still being reasonable by saying "don't go to Calais".

The topic I raised is the UK's shitty response to the refugee crisis. Your contribution has been "yeah, but whatbout [insert whatever other country you can find a reason to criticise here]?" Rinse and repeat.

Ok, let's talk about minor domestic issues instead of major international issues.

This is a minor domestic issue because I do not believe there is a single person trapped in Ukraine because the UK is being difficult. The people we are talking about are safe in Europe.

[OngBonga]

It's irrelevant to the refugees themselves how they got here. Once they're here, they have to be treated as asylum seekers, not sent to some other country for "processing," or whatever they keep trying to do with them. When they're in the English channel rowing over here, they should not be met with a battleship to scare them back to France.

The people traffickers are scumbags, and if we capture people traffickers we should prosecute them, assuming there is even a law against it. What we shouldn't do is assume every man woman and child who arrives on a dinghy is themselves a people trafficker and treat them like a criminal, as that makes no sense at all. The people who've paid the criminals for passage to the UK are not themselves criminals.

The number of people who are crossing the channel in dinghies is a problem, I agree. But the solution is not to send out a battleship to steer them back to France. The solution is to enable them safe passage. It costs a lot less to send a ferry from Calais to Dover than to send a battleship out to patrol the Channel, so there can no whinging about costs.

You start this post with a comment about "refugees". Let's just clarify something here... those fleeing Ukraine are refugees. Those fleeing France on boats are migrants. There is a difference, and it's an important difference.

When they're in the English channel rowing over here, they should not be met with a battleship to scare them back to France.

We're not just trying to deter people traffickers and migrants, we're trying to deter France from doing nothing. France have an obligation to secure their borders, including coastlines. France should be doing more to stop these boats leaving their territory. But they don't want these migrants, so they allow it to happen. What should the UK do? Just say "ok, you've got us, they're in British waters" and let this play out indefinitely? Ludicrous.

France are to blame for this crisis. We're trying to secure our borders. France are not. France are encouraging people traffickers. If France did more, this would be resolved.

The people traffickers are scumbags, and if we capture people traffickers we should prosecute them, assuming there is even a law against it.

Of course there's a law against it.

What we shouldn't do is assume every man woman and child who arrives on a dinghy is themselves a people trafficker and treat them like a criminal...

Well yeah, the people traffickers themselves aren't getting onto these dodgy boats. And while a migrant isn't automatically a criminal for attempting to enter a country by illegal means, they aren't law abiding either. Maybe that's not their fault, maybe they were led to believe this is how you migrate to the UK by people traffickers. Maybe they didn't even know they were getting on a boat until they were ushered onto one. Who knows?

Turning away boats at sea is a terrible thing to do. But allowing them to arrive is worse, because it encourages the people traffickers to keep doing it, to keep putting these people at serious risk of drowning.

There is no good way for the UK to deal with this problem.

The solution is to enable them safe passage.

No. The solution is to pressure France to secure their maritime borders.

It costs a lot less to send a ferry from Calais to Dover than to send a battleship out to patrol the Channel, so there can no whinging about costs.

This isn't about cost. There's a lot more to it than that. This is a battle of political will between France and the UK, with France allowing these people to be put at risk, and the UK refusing to allow France to palm off their migrants onto us.

[Poopadoop]

We should set up processing centers on the coast of France, Belgium, Neth. and Germany. One per country. Put it on the internet where each one is. Anyone who turns up with a Ukranian passport gets a visa to the UK for some time (say 3 years).

What we're doing instead is saying we have a processing center in Calais (Priti Patel's words), then when refugees show up there, telling them "Psych! Go to Paris or Brussels. Then you can apply for a visa and after we think about it for a while, we might let you into the UK. We can't say for sure just now, because we haven't really figured out the rules ourselves yet. It's only been 10 days ya'know."

[OngBonga]

We should set up processing centers on the coast of France, Belgium, Neth. and Germany. One per country.

Or send them to the capitals and fly them in. Capital cities are usually much easier to get to from all parts of a country, and have more resources than coastal locations.

What we're doing instead is saying we have a processing center in Calais (Priti Patel's words)

Well if we're saying this and then sending them to Paris, this is obviously problematic unless we're helping these people get to Paris.

[Poopadoop]

You start this post with a comment about "refugees". Let's just clarify something here... those fleeing Ukraine are refugees. Those fleeing France on boats are migrants. There is a difference, and it's an important difference.

Let's get real. The people who float across the channel on a dinghy are asylum seekers. Migrants are people who apply for a visa from their home country, get it, then come over. As if people are going to risk their lives on a dinghy just to get here and be told "you're not seeking asylum and you have no visa, so sorry we have no obligation to let you stay here, you have to go back."

We're not just trying to deter people traffickers and migrants, we're trying to deter France from doing nothing. France have an obligation to secure their borders, including coastlines. France should be doing more to stop these boats leaving their territory. But they don't want these migrants, so they allow it to happen. What should the UK do? Just say "ok, you've got us, they're in British waters" and let this play out indefinitely? Ludicrous.

There's no international law that says a country can't let people leave their country and go out to sea. Nor does any country have an obligation to help another country's immigration system. France can choose to help us if we cooperate with them but since we have such a poor attitude towards France and the EU in general, I think we've pretty much shot ourselves in the foot on that one.

France are to blame for this crisis. We're trying to secure our borders. France are not. France are encouraging people traffickers. If France did more, this would be resolved.

How can we get them to do cooperate? By being cunts over fishing?

Of course there's a law against it.

Seems like it'd be hard to prosecute. First you have to find the person, then get them in your juridiction to arrest and charge. Do you know how many dinghy traffickers have been convicted?

Turning away boats at sea is a terrible thing to do. But allowing them to arrive is worse, because it encourages the people traffickers to keep doing it, to keep putting these people at serious risk of drowning.

There is no good way for the UK to deal with this problem.

We could help the people who want to get here to get here without having to cross in a dinghy. That's one way.

No. The solution is to pressure France to secure their maritime borders.

Let's assume the French are dicks or whatever and they dont' want to help us. What do we do then? Send a battleship?

This isn't about cost. There's a lot more to it than that. This is a battle of political will between France and the UK, with France allowing these people to be put at risk, and the UK refusing to allow France to palm off their migrants onto us.

The French can't tell asylum seekers they can't go on to the UK.

Let's say a refugee comes from Syria. He travels first to Turkey, the border guard says "Who are you and where are you going?" The refugee says "I'm fleeing the war Syria and I have family in the UK I want to go there." The Turk guard says ok and let's him in. The same thing happens at the borders of Greece, Italy, Switzerland, and then France. The refugee finally gets to Calais and finds out there's no help to get to the UK. He still wants to meet up his family in the UK so he ends up taking a dinghy.

And you think France should do what, arrest him? Sink the dinghy? What? Do you think France should spend all their resources patrolling their entire coastline looking for refugee dinghies full of people who want to get to the UK and herding them back to Calais to go sit in a tent again, and wait and hope the UK will get their finger out and do something to help them get across?

[OngBonga]

Just looking into this. The official UK website is saying there are Visa application centres in Paris, Warsaw, Budapest, Bucharest and Chisinau (Moldova). No mention of Calais.

[Poopadoop]

Latest from negotiation talks:

Two persons close to the Russia-Ukraine negotiations (including back channel talks) tell me Russia proposed (1) Zelensky remains pro forma president but Russia appoints Boiko as PM, (2) Ukraine recognizes L/DNR and Crimea, (3) No NATO. Ze told them emphatically no.

1. Install Russian puppet as PM

...I assume that was the end of the discussion there.

[Poopadoop]

Just looking into this. The official UK website is saying there are Visa application centres in Paris, Warsaw, Budapest, Bucharest and Chisinau (Moldova). No mention of Calais.

It does now. What did it say yesterday or the day before? Which website was Priti Patel getting her info from?

Also, since when do refugees need to apply for a visa?

Edit: It gets better.

Ukrainians fleeing Putin's war for Britain are being told to go to the visa office in Paris - but there are no appointments until March 15 - Yvette Cooper tells Parliament.

Double Edit:

They also told a Brit & family to travel to Belgium to get their visas but the Belgium authorities said they knew nothing of these so called arrangements.

[OngBonga]

Let's get real. The people who float across the channel on a dinghy are asylum seekers.

A fair correction. They will become migrants if successful. The reason I made the distinction though is because there are different rules for refugees fleeing war, compared to asylum seekers seeking economic opportunities.

There's no international law that says a country can't let people leave their country and go out to sea.

People trafficking falls into the category of modern slavery and is illegal under international law.

Current international treaties (general)Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, entered into force in 1957
Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children
Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air
Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography
ILO Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)
ILO Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105)
ILO Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138)
ILO Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No. 182)
Inter-American Convention on International Traffic in Minors

Nor does any country have an obligation to help another country's immigration system.

Countries are obligated to secure their borders with other countries. They are also obliged to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of people in their territory. Letting people leave the coast for England on boats not fit for purpose is clearly failing in this obligation.

How can we get them to do cooperate? By being cunts over fishing?

By reminding them of their obligations under international law, and raising formal protests with relevant international courts.

Seems like it'd be hard to prosecute.

It's certainly not easy. That does not mean we should not use every resource at our disposal to attempt to bring these people to justice.

We could help the people who want to get here to get here without having to cross in a dinghy. That's one way.

Indeed, and we do. This is how legal immigration happens.

Let's assume the French are dicks or whatever and they dont' want to help us. What do we do then? Send a battleship?

We could treat our immigrants like utter shit to the point they want to leave the UK for France, and then do fuck all when they get on dodgy boats and head south. But naturally that would be highly immoral.

That's what France is doing.

No we shouldn't send a battleship to France. We should hit them with economic sanctions. Stop buying their wine.

The French can't tell asylum seekers they can't go on to the UK.

I'm not saying they should. They should simply uphold their obligations to protect the safety of people in their country.

Let's say a refugee comes from Syria. He travels first to Turkey, the border guard says "Who are you and where are you going?" The refugee says "I'm fleeing the war Syria and I have family in the UK I want to go there."

I'm glad you think that those trying to come here all have family here. I suppose this is why we have such opposing opinions on this matter. I believe they want to come to the UK because we treat migrants better than France does, we provide accommodation, money, education and health to migrants. Contrary to popular opinion, British people are particularly welcoming towards migrants, certainly more so than the French and Polish. Maybe not compared to Germany and Sweden, but we treat migrants very well, both legally and socially. That's why they want to come here. Not because they speak English, and not because they have family here (though obviously some do).

[OngBonga]

Also, since when do refugees need to apply for a visa?

When they're arriving from a country not at war. Maybe we should stop being an island, it's incredibly selfish of us.

[OngBonga]

Latest from negotiation talks:

1. Install Russian puppet as PM

...I assume that was the end of the discussion there.

The other demands are arguably reasonable. But this one isn't.

Recognising Crimea as Russian territory is accepting reality. Same with recognising the autonomy of the breakaway states. Russia are never going to give up Crimea without a fight, it is far too strategic. And the breakaway states have been oppressed by Ukraine since 2014, there is no hope of the people of these regions ever being loyal to the Ukrainian nation.

Not joining NATO is a no brainer if they want peaceful relations with Russia.

Accepting a puppet government though, that's very clearly going to be rejected.

[Poopadoop]

Seriously, is Cruella Patel really this stupid or just plain evil?

Priti Patel insists there are UK immigration officials in Calais and that it’s “absolutely wrong” to suggest otherwise - 4 hours after Downing Street said there weren’t.

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1500823804972515334

[Poopadoop]

The other demands are arguably reasonable. But this one isn't.

Recognising Crimea as Russian territory is accepting reality. Same with recognising the autonomy of the breakaway states. Russia are never going to give up Crimea without a fight, it is far too strategic. And the breakaway states have been oppressed by Ukraine since 2014, there is no hope of the people of these regions ever being loyal to the Ukrainian nation.

Not joining NATO is a no brainer if they want peaceful relations with Russia.

Accepting a puppet government though, that's very clearly going to be rejected.

You can say anything about recognising this or that territory. You can promise to never join NATO. Nothing to keep you from changing your mind later, especially after Russia agreed to recognise Ukraine in return for getting their nukes, then changed their mind about that.

Letting Putin install a puppet dictator though is basically just surrendering. Zelensky will never do this, they'll have to kill him first.

[CoccoBill]

https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/stat...95309595725831

[Poopadoop]

^^

#MRGA

[MadMojoMonkey]

Holy crap that's a lot of convo I missed.

Not going to read back through everything, but @ong, re human traficing.
This has been called out as almost entirely BS.

The evidence of human traficing is minimal to almost non-existent in US border crossings. It gets brought up because it is ugly, and horrible and it gets people riled up. But I've seen a few investigations into the allegations of human traficing happening as immigration / migration and it's basically a red herring.

It happens. It's just that the rate of it happening is not a good reason to deny migration to people. It's tantamount to saying, "there is at least 1 murderer in your home country, therefor we must assume you are a murderer until proven otherwise." It's a perversion of justice, IMO.

[OngBonga]

The evidence of human traficing is minimal to almost non-existent in US border crossings.

I'm not trying to shut you down but the USA/Mexico border is incomparable to the UK/France maritime border.

It's tantamount to saying, "there is at least 1 murderer in your home country, therefor we must assume you are a murderer until proven otherwise."

This is not remotely how it is. I'm not suggesting that the people arriving on boats are people traffickers. I'm saying they are attempting to enter the country by illegal means, and we should prioritise those who attempt to enter legally. And I'm saying that by allowing people to arrive undocumented by boat, we encourage people traffickers.

If you think people trafficking isn't how these people get here, then where the fuck are they getting the boats from? These are desperately poor people remember. Acquiring a boat that is capable of crossing the channel with many people in it, this isn't something you buy at the supermarche at Calais. These crossings are organised. By whom?

From a quick google search, there were 24 arrests for people trafficking in the UK in 2020. Can't seem to find more recent figures.

[OngBonga]

Can't find French figures either, and this is where the traffickers are more likely to be based.

[OngBonga]

I can find tons of reports talking about how people traffickers are running a business ferrying people from France to UK, but what I can find is right wing media like the Express, the Sun, etc. Not gonna link shit like that.

[MadMojoMonkey]

To me, human trafficking means moving people against their will.

If the people hired or otherwise arranged for a boat to get across the water, then not human trafficking, IMO.
If they were forced onto the boat against their will, then yes human trafficking.

[OngBonga]

To me, human trafficking means moving people against their will.

Ok so we disagree on what people trafficking means, and a little research implies you might be correct to use this term in this context. People smuggling seems to be the moving of people with consent. I guess I'm falling victim to the media preferring to use the term traffickers than smugglers.

But I suspect it's a grey area between the two. If someone is coerced into movement by means of deception, or because they are convinced they have no other alternative, genuine consent becomes questionable.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah I don't know what the evidence of widespread people trafficking in the UK is. I did read a story a few years back of some east Asian immigrants who died in the back of a truck somewhere in England. Didn't have anything to do with dinghies though afaik.

More to the point, none of the people in the dinghies are traffickers. If we accept that they're all asylum seekers, their means of getting to our country is irrelevant imo.

[OngBonga]

Yeah, from Wikipedia...

Smuggling situations can descend into human trafficking through coercion and exploitation

Key word in the context of France/UK border crossings... exploitation.

[OngBonga]

More to the point, none of the people in the dinghies are traffickers. If we accept that they're asylum seekers, their means of getting to our country is irrelevant imo.

First sentence, no problem. Second, problem.

It matters. It's relevant because it's allowing a criminal and highly immoral business to thrive. And it matters because for every person that enters illegally, that's one less person who can enter legally. Why do you want to prioritise those who enter illegally? Why do you think the UK as a state should be forced to accept these asylum seekers instead of the ones filling in paperwork in Paris or whatever?

[Poopadoop]

Key word in the context of France/UK border crossings... exploitation.

The key word is AND.

The definition includes coercion. That means forced. You can exploit someone without coercion and vice/versa - e.g., if you put a gun to their head or threaten their childrens' lives to force them to cross the channel, that's coercion. If you just jack up the price because if they don't pay it someone else will, that's exploitation. If you do both it's trafficking.

[OngBonga]

btw, France have a greater obligation to combat people trafficking than the UK does, because France is an EU member state. The EU have issued a directive relating to this crime. A "directive" is not optional or negotiable, you are outright obliged by law.

[OngBonga]

The key word is AND.

You think Wikipedia, written by normal people, is this tight when it comes to language? I don't. This seems like pedantry. Show me legalese that confirms your assertion and I'll backtrack.

The definition includes coercion. That means forced.

Coercion can be achieved by deception. It's not necessarily outright forcing someone. It can be tricking them with lies.

[OngBonga]

If you just jack up the price because if they don't pay it someone else will, that's exploitation.

While this is exploitation, it's not how migrants are generally exploited. This probably happens, but the term "exploitation" in this context refers to taking advantage of the desperate plight of these people.

It means the same as when we say sex workers are exploited, even though more often than not they choose to be sex workers. That's because people are taking advantage of their desperation.

[Poopadoop]

It's relevant because it's allowing a criminal and highly immoral business to thrive.

So basically you're more worried that some scumbags in France are making a quick buck by exploiting the refugees than about the refugee's rights to asylum? Seems like a strange way of prioritising things. What if someone in Switzerland mugs a refugee and takes his wallet? Should we refuse that refugee then on the grounds that we're stopping crime?

And it matters because for every person that enters illegally, that's one less person who can enter legally.

Not how it works. A person crossing on a dinghy getting picked up on the beach by the coast guard is not stopping someone else coming across on a ferry. It's not a zero-sum game.

Why do you want to prioritise those who enter illegally? Why do you think the UK as a state should be forced to accept these asylum seekers instead of the ones filling in paperwork in Paris or whatever?

Who said anything about giving them priority? Again, you're assuming it's a zero-sum game, like someone in the Paris office is saying "we had 20 refugees land by dinghy today near Dover, therefore we're going to take 20 less applications in Paris. Sorry Ahmed, but it's back to Syria for you."

[Poopadoop]

Coercion can be achieved by deception. It's not necessarily outright forcing someone. It can be tricking them with lies.

Coercion
noun

the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats

Too easy.

[OngBonga]

So basically you're more worried that some scumbags in France are making a quick buck by exploiting the refugees than about the refugee's rights to asylum?

Yes. These scumbags will just send more people over if they can make money doing so, and the problem becomes more serious.

You seem to be more concerned about the safety of a boatload of people, rather than the safety of several boatloads of people.

What if someone in Switzerland mugs a refugee and takes his wallet? Should we refuse that refugee then on the grounds that we're stopping crime?

Fucking hell, worst analogy ever.

Not how it works. A person crossing on a dinghy getting picked up on the beach by the coast guard is not stopping someone else coming across on a ferry. It's not a zero-sum game.

It's not literally how it works, we're don't have a strict limit that goes up and down for every migrant that enters and leaves. But when we talk of thousands, it becomes a different story. That is impacting on the ability of others to come here.

[OngBonga]

Too easy.

Try reading a more detailed definition.

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

I got through the opening section and concluded that your one-liner is insufficient.

[OngBonga]

Here's a legal definition of coercion...

Coercion
The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. The crime of intentionally and unlawfully restraining another's freedom by threatening to commit a crime, accusing the victim of a crime, disclosing any secret that would seriously impair the victim's reputation in the community, or by performing or refusing to perform an official action lawfully requested by the victim, or by causing an official to do so.

[Poopadoop]

The bottom line is we can't control what happens in France. If we're nice to France they will cooperate with us if there's a serious concern over human trafficking. I imagine they do try to stop it, but within limits (i.e., they don't have 1,000 agents sneaking around tents at Calais trying to find traffickers). But they're not going to let us send MI6 over to do it on French soil because, you know, that word that you love so much. Starts with an S.

The UK's moral and legal responsibility starts when these people enter UK territory. There's no excuse for not processing them normally like any other immigrant, legal or otherwise, at that point. If they claim asylum, they need to be processed in the UK, and while that's going on they need to be fed and housed. It's international law. We don't get to pretend we're special somehow because some people here are xenophobes.

[Poopadoop]

Here's a legal definition of coercion...

Sounds like a long-winded way of saying "using force or threat" to me. Don't see anything in there about deception.

[OngBonga]

Coercion is not simply making a threat. It's making someone feel like they have no alternative but to follow your demands.

If I tell you to get in the boat or you won't have another opportunity to get into England, when that is a blatant lie, I am coercing you.

[Poopadoop]

Yes. These scumbags will just send more people over if they can make money doing so, and the problem becomes more serious.

You seem to be more concerned about the safety of a boatload of people, rather than the safety of several boatloads of people.

No, my solution is to offer them a ferry ride. Yours is, I don't know what yours is. Care to share?

It's not literally how it works, we're don't have a strict limit that goes up and down for every migrant that enters and leaves. But when we talk of thousands, it becomes a different story. That is impacting on the ability of others to come here.

It's just odd because it almost sounds like you want them to be able to come here, but don't want to help them do it. Then when they come illegally, you blame them for someone else not being able to come here.

[OngBonga]

The UK's moral and legal responsibility starts when these people enter UK territory.

This is probably why we're sending boats out to stop them getting into our territorial waters.

[Poopadoop]

Coercion is not simply making a threat. It's making someone feel like they have no alternative but to follow your demands.

If I tell you to get in the boat or you won't have another opportunity to get into England, when that is a blatant lie, I am coercing you.

I mean you're obviously just digging in your heels here when you know you're wrong and have been proven wrong, so I'm not going to bother entertaining you any further.

[Poopadoop]

This is probably why we're sending boats out to stop them getting into our territorial waters.

We're not actually. They were talking about doing it, but I think it's actually impractical and/or possibly illegal to do so.

[OngBonga]

No, my solution is to offer them a ferry ride. Yours is, I don't know what yours is. Care to share?

Sure. My solution is for them to fill out the required paperwork in Paris, instead of heading for Calais and hoping to bump into a dodgy fucker with a boat. If they have the required documents, then by all means give them a ferry ride.

It's just odd because it almost sounds like you want them to be able to come here, but don't want to help them do it.

I want legal, documents, and safe migration to the UK. Not sure why that's so confusing for you. You seem to be happy to encourage seriously dangerous and illegal methods.

[OngBonga]

We're not actually. They were talking about doing it, but I think it's actually impractical and/or possibly illegal to do so.

Well there's plenty of evidence of boats being escorted to shore, rather than being turned away or sunk by battleships. Presumably, that's because they reached territorial waters, which, iirc, is 2 miles from the shore.

[Poopadoop]

Sure. My solution is for them to fill out the required paperwork in Paris, instead of heading for Calais and hoping to bump into a dodgy fucker with a boat. If they have the required documents, then by all means give them a ferry ride.

Pretty sure there's no legal requirement for asylum seekers to fill in paperwork before they enter a country. Could be wrong though.

Edit: From UK gov't website on seeking asylum:

You should apply when you arrive in the UK

I want legal, documents, and safe migration to the UK. Not sure why that's so confusing for you. You seem to be happy to encourage seriously dangerous and illegal methods.

Offering people a free ferry ride is pretty dangerous I guess yeah. Good point.

[OngBonga]

It's not 2 miles, it's a lot more. Presumably there are no international waters between Calais and Dover, our territorial waters will border each other, though we'll both be obliged to allow free passage of shipping.

[OngBonga]

Pretty sure there's no legal requirement for asylum seekers to fill in paperwork before they enter a country. Could be wrong though.

Well I don't know about this, but they generally need to do more than turn up at ports undocumented.

Offering people a free ferry ride is pretty dangerous I guess yeah. Good point.

Wait, you mean just go and pick everyone up from Calais? Blimey. I thought you meant escort them in, pick them up off the boats. My apologies. I didn't realise you were actually talking about just going to Calais and saying "who wants a free ferry ride to the UK?"

[Poopadoop]

Wait, you mean just go and pick everyone up from Calais? Blimey. I thought you meant escort them in, pick them up off the boats. My apologies. I didn't realise you were actually talking about just going to Calais and saying "who wants a free ferry ride to the UK?"

If they're seeking asylum in the UK, yes, I'm saying we should do this. It would stop the human trafficking and be a lot safer for them than coming over in dinghies.

You OTOH, seem to want them all to somehow find their way to Paris to fill in the paperwork that our own gov't website says they should fill in when they arrive in the UK, which afaik is in accordance with international law on dealing with asylum seekers.

[Poopadoop]

Here's the ukgov website on asylum applications. It's pretty clear you should apply when you enter the UK, not before. Nothing in there about filling in forms or showing your paperwork at any time before you get here.

https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum

Your solution seems to make it harder for them to get to the UK and seek asylum by adding in more hoops to jump through (get to Paris, fill in an application, provide documents, etc.). Pretty sure that's both illegal and not going to help stop human trafficking.

[MadMojoMonkey]

We're not actually. They were talking about doing it, but I think it's actually impractical and/or possibly illegal to do so.

I'm glad to hear that because my response to what ong suggested was to say aloud, "That's fucked up!"

[OngBonga]

If they're seeking asylum in the UK, yes, I'm saying we should do this. It would stop the human trafficking and be a lot safer for them than coming over in dinghies.

And what happens after we've collected everyone from Calais that wants to come to England? More people come to Calais wanting to come to England.

What you're saying here is that the UK is open to literally anyone in the world who wants to come.

You OTOH, seem to want them all to somehow find their way to Paris...

What I meant by that was that I want them to be documented. Whether it's Paris, Calais, Damascus, wherever there is a British office for dealing with asylum seekers. What I don't want is people from around the world turning up at Calais, getting on a boat, and then being in Britain, without at any point having made an application for asylum. You don't turn up in Dover and apply there, otherwise we have no control over immigration and the borders are practically open to the world.

Which is fucking stupid.

Here's the ukgov website on asylum applications.

This is for refugees who are not safe in their country. And it also says this...

You should apply when you arrive in the UK or as soon as you think it would be unsafe for you to return to your own country. Your application is more likely to be denied if you wait.

So this implies you should apply as soon as possible, and ideally not from England.

Economic migrants should not be turning up unannounced.

This is why earlier I tried to distinguish between migrants and refugees. One group of people are fleeing war and can turn up unannounced, although in the case of the UK it's hard to understand why they would do so since they are not fleeing a border country to the UK. But still, refugees are fleeing war and I don't have a problem with this at all.

Economic migrants are seeking a better life. There's a ridiculous amount of people in the world who would like better economic opportunities. Most of India, population 1 billion. It should be obvious the UK does not have room for India. Where's the line? You must have a line poop, you must realise there comes a point where we're full up.

[OngBonga]

I'm glad to hear that because my response to what ong suggested was to say aloud, "That's fucked up!"

On the one hand, you stop them by force. On the other hand, you create a business opportunity for people traffickers. There is no good solution. It's fucked up either way.

France have to do their bit. What they're doing is fucked up. They are basically doing fuck all because they don't want these migrants.

Poop seems to think we should be nice to France. We are nice to France. They are our allies and we have excellent trade with them. We visit their country as tourists as have good relations with their people. We even teach their language at school. The UK and France are friends. Like most friends, we bicker about things. That's normal international relations.

[Poopadoop]

And what happens after we've collected everyone from Calais that wants to come to England? More people come to Calais wanting to come to England.

What you're saying here is that the UK is open to literally anyone in the world who wants to come.

What you're saying is France should feed, clothe, and house asylum seekers who want to go to the UK, indefinitely. And also they should stop and seize dinghies in the channel. So basically France should be our immigration service overseas.

What I meant by that was that I want them to be documented. Whether it's Paris, Calais, Damascus, wherever there is a British office for dealing with asylum seekers. What I don't want is people from around the world turning up at Calais, getting on a boat, and then being in Britain, without at any point having made an application for asylum. You don't turn up in Dover and apply there, otherwise we have no control over immigration and the borders are practically open to the world.

Which is fucking stupid.

There's an international UN agreement on asylum seeking refugees. The UK is a part of that agreement. The UK govt website aligns with that agreement. The UK gov'ts actions don't. So we either should withdraw from the agreement and admit we're cunts, or follow it.

This is for refugees who are not safe in their country. And it also says this...

You should apply when you arrive in the UK or as soon as you think it would be unsafe for you to return to your own country. Your application is more likely to be denied if you wait.

So this implies you should apply as soon as possible, and ideally not from England.

You can't apply for asylum in the UK unless you're physically in the UK.

What that bit you quoted means is if you're, e.g., a Ukrainian who comes to the UK in January on a visa that ends in March, and you decide it's not safe to go back, you apply as soon as you decide it's not safe.

Economic migrants should not be turning up unannounced.

I agree, and if they do they won't be allowed entry. But if they're seeking asylum they have to physically be in the UK to do so. They can't apply from Paris or Calais or anywhere outside the UK. You might not like it, but that's the law.

This is why earlier I tried to distinguish between migrants and refugees. One group of people are fleeing war and can turn up unannounced, although in the case of the UK it's hard to understand why they would do so since they are not fleeing a border country to the UK. But still, refugees are fleeing war and I don't have a problem with this at all.

And the law is very clear on this. They can't apply while they're in another country, they can only apply once they get to the UK. There's no forms to fill out in country X to apply for refugee status in the UK, that's simply not how it works.

Economic migrants are seeking a better life. There's a ridiculous amount of people in the world who would like better economic opportunities. Most of India, population 1 billion. It should be obvious the UK does not have room for India. Where's the line? You must have a line poop, you must realise there comes a point where we're full up.

You're confusing economic migrants with refugees. They're two completely different classes of people.

[Poopadoop]

France have to do their bit. What they're doing is fucked up. They are basically doing fuck all because they don't want these migrants.

The refugees are trying to get to the UK. You think France should stop them trying to do so, i.e., they should be breaking international law on our behalf. It's not a reasonable expectation.

And let's say some of them are economic migrants, and some are legitimate refugees. You expect France to sort out who is who for us? Why should they? Those people need to be allowed into the UK to have their cases heard here. It's our responsibility, not France's.

[Poopadoop]

The whole problem here is the media has convinced people like Ong and a lot of others that it's France's responsibility to deal with our immigration issues. Like France should break intn'l law to detain these people who are trying to get to the UK, either for legitimate reasons or not. That's not how border control laws work.

Next they'll be wanting to build a wall across the English channel and make France pay for it. It really is that absurd.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What's maddening to me is

if a family of refugees turned up on ong's doorstep and spoke English and could tell him their story and ask for some minimal hospitality for the night - I have a feeling ong wouldn't just slam the door in their face.

I have a feeling ong would feel compelled to extend compassion. Maybe offer some food or a blanket or just something.
Something.


And I suspect all the rhetoric about denying compassion to people is a byproduct of physical and emotional distance from those people.


After all... No one wants to see themselves as inhospitable to a person who needs a helping hand.
I don't think ong wants to live in a world where people don't help each other, even if they're strangers to each other.

It's just easy to separate individual human decisions into an amorphous glob of "migrants" or "refugees."


IDK. I'm pretty sure we're all decent folks, here.
That we can talk some smack, but at the end of the day, this is an internet conversation.
That despite certain hard line views, if we were confronted face to face with a starving family on the run from a war or a genocide that we'd at least sympathize with their simple need for someone in this fucked up world to not treat them like animals.

[OngBonga]

What you're saying is France should feed, clothe, and house asylum seekers who want to go to the UK, indefinitely.

Yes. They're in France, not the UK. They are France's responsibility, not the UK's. They become the UK's responsibility when they are successful in their application.

If literally everyone in France suddenly said "I want to go to the UK", does that mean suddenly that the entire population of France is the UK's responsibility?

And also they should stop and seize dinghies in the channel.

In their territorial waters, yes. They are obliged to secure their maritime border, and they are obliged to protect the safety of people in their territory.

There's an international UN agreement on asylum seeking refugees. The UK is a part of that agreement. The UK govt website aligns with that agreement. The UK gov'ts actions don't. So we either should withdraw from the agreement and admit we're cunts, or follow it.

Ok. I'll take your word for it that we're failing in our agreed obligations, because frankly it wouldn't surprise me. If this agreement is the reason this situation is happening, then yes we should leave that agreement.

Presumably France are part of that agreement too though, and presumably they have obligations to protect their borders. They are certainly obligation by EU directive to tackle people trafficking.

You can't apply for asylum in the UK unless you're physically in the UK.

Ok, we're getting lost in language again here. Let's use the words refugees and migrants to avoid this, because asylum seeker seem ambiguous.

Migrants need to apply before coming here, or they need to be here already on a visa.

I agree, and if they do they won't be allowed entry.

Ok, I'm glad we have some agreement on this. Presumably we now disagree on the status of these people on boats coming from France. I am saying these people are mostly economic migrants. I don't doubt some of them are legitimate refugees that we should be accepting, but their method of arrival is hugely problematic.

There is no need to risk life to escape France. There is no war in France. They are safe in France. From France they can make their case to the British for why we should assist them in getting to England.

And the law is very clear on this. They can't apply while they're in another country, they can only apply once they get to the UK.

The law is also very clear that you do not get on a boat and head for another country without authorisation from both the country you are leaving and the country you are arriving in. At least it's clear to me.

Clearly, if they can't apply to the British for refugee status from another country, and they can't simply walk to the border, there is a problem. But the solution to that problem is not to get on a boat and head for the British coast. The solution is for the British to assist people in France, and other places where necessary. We have embassies in every capital.

Economic migrants are seeking a better life. There's a ridiculous amount of people in the world who would like better economic opportunities. Most of India, population 1 billion. It should be obvious the UK does not have room for India. Where's the line? You must have a line poop, you must realise there comes a point where we're full up.

You're confusing economic migrants with refugees. They're two completely different classes of people.

What? Refugees are fleeing war or natural disaster. Economic migrants seek better economic opportunities. You seem to be the one getting confused here.

People who want a better life in another country are not refugees. People who are fleeing for their lives are refugees.