OT. EUSSR uses our money to expand Calais

[harry]

But nothing to keep immigrants out of the UK.

[Brian-Gaff]

Why don't they ak the un to police the first country of entry rules for them, so at least they would not get as far as France etc, as its a big headache for them also. I've never quite understood why this is not upheld and the person sent back to their entry point for assylum. Obviously, once accepted and perhaps given some work they can then see if they can finance thmselves to go anywhere in the eu, but at the moment its just a total shambles, wich everyone passing the buck. These are mostly displaced people so there has to be some kind of organised way to get them sorted. brian

[Adrian]

If you're going to police "first country of entry", you need to have some way to spread the load across all the EU once people are accepted. Without that, those countries with Med shorelines are being asked to take EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY. That's just unrealistic.

And, if there is a fairer distribution across the continent, then the UK will be taking more, not less. We currently have far fewer than "our fair share".

[Richard]

One is more than "our fair share", they should be distributed evenly along the north African coast.

[Adrian]

Go and look at a map of the North African coast.

[Nightjar]

The port is not their main target. Even when a number managed to break into the port last year, they were unable to get aboard any of the ferries.

[Adrian]

Can't easily do that.

To "return" somebody rescued from international waters to Libya (say) would require them to either be demonstrably a Libyan national or for the Libyan gov't to accept them.

And there isn't a Libyan government to accept anybody or anything...

Damn that whole international law mullarkey...

[Tim Streater]

Presumably you mean, once they are accepted as genuine refugees? I thought that once this had happened, they could go anywhere in the EU. So they would do the redistribution themselves.

[harry]

We could offer to police the Tunisian/Libyan border. Immigrants could be taken to Tunisia and shoved over the border into Libya. They could then let the others know what's going on.

[Nightjar]

Not so. Once granted refugee status, they are foreign nationals within the country that granted them asylum. They are not EU citizens and do not have the right of free movement within the EU.

If they want to move to another country, inside or outside the EU, they have to apply separately for residency of that country, without the benefit of being able to claim refugee status. That is why they try to reach a specific country before applying for asylum.

Oddly enough, many of those trying to get across the Channel would do better under the French provisions for refugees than they would under the UK rules. Only those with families would be better off in the UK. However, language is a significant driving factor; a lot of those trying to get to Britain are from Eritrea, where English is widely spoken. Perhaps we should fund French lessons in Eritrea.

[Tim Streater]

OK. In that case why aren't the `french preventing their entry from Italy?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Given we can't even police our own - when surrounded by water - you think?

[Adrian]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:22:20 +0100, Nightjar > Presumably you mean, once they are accepted as genuine refugees? I

Not quite...

Schengen, there's no borders*. There is no difference.

Except the asylum tests are standardised throughout the EU, and one country's results of those tests is accepted by every other country.

So somebody granted asylum in one country would automatically have that asylum respected in another.

There are, of course, a lot of largely-Francophone former French colonies in Africa.

• - Well, there shouldn't be...

[Adrian]

Because they're both Schengen countries.

Oh, and...

But these are people whose asylum claims haven't been processed yet. There is a certain irony, of course, given Sangatte...

[Adrian]

460km of line across the desert, with one side of that line having no effective government at all?

Nice easy job...

Let's not forget the near-on thousand km with Algeria - which is not only pretty much a failed state itself, but has a thousand km of border with Libya, too.

[Nightjar]

A refugee can cross a Schengen border, but that does not give them the right to reside or work in the second country. They only have those rights in the country that grants them asylum.

IOW, they are not illegal immigrants if they enter another EU country and meet the requirements for a foreign national visiting that country. They do not, however, have the automatic right to reside or work in any country other than the one that grants them asylum.

Which is reflected in the mix of peoples seeking to settle in France. Their largest group of asylum seekers come from the Congo.

[Nightjar]

...

Which is probably why Tunisia is going to build a wall along that border. How effective it will be is another matter.

[charles]

Both the Romans and the Chinese built walls to keep people out - successfully, I understand.

[Richard]

OK. Back from looking. And?

[Adrian]

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 18:34:42 +0100, Nightjar >>> We could offer to police the Tunisian/Libyan border.

Well, along 168km of it. The other 300km aren't a problem, apparently.

Quite.