Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "How the PM’s immigration bill went from humanitarian to political crisis" video.

  1. Because; 1. French soil is not British soil. Britain can therefore not do as it pleases, nor can British agents and officials just operate at will on foreign soil. So before we go anywhere, this is far more complicated a solution than any other and would require consistent, ongoing cooperation from the French. 2. There are already existing options for asylum claims to be processed in their home country for many of the most common nations migrant nations. These are not utilised because the way international law is set up, asylum claims have greater chance of success if you travel to the host country than if you are outside their territory. The same is true for Calais. 3. There is no obligation to process anyone not inside your territory. Boats intercepted in the channel whilst still in french waters are already sent back. The goal is to intercept in the narrow transition band so they can't seek asylum and can be deported. 4. Stopping boats on humanitarian grounds is the legal loophole to the UDHR and refugee convention. People making irregular crossings that drown in the channel aren't anyone's problem, those who don't drown are the problem. The goal is to make every step of migration for economic migrants abusing the asylum system as uncomfortable as possible. Please review the Australian model, it's what is being attempted. It works everywhere it is deployed. 5. The Australian model drops attempted illegal economic migration by 3/4. Offshore detention centres are a critical part of the model. They're essentially overcrowded prisons designed to inflict trauma and break their spirits over years so they stop challenging in court and accept deportation to a third safe country willing to take them in, such as Rwanda. As there is no chance of going up in economic status, economic migration stops. In the case of the UK, they'll stop attempting the additional step of trying to cross from France to the UK and instead claim in France. Then it's an EU problem. 6. This is ultimately a problem of an already aging population, and irregular immigration by unskilled persons whom simply have no ability to meaningfully contribute to the economy. Targeted migration is a net positive to an economy, untargeted and unrestricted migration is a net negative. The government extensively need to control the border or things like the number of vacancies in the NHS will only rise as population grows but skilled labour does not grow at pace.
    2
  2.  @socillizt4life  It's so much more complicated than that.
    1
  3.  @socillizt4life  1. You overestimate French enthusiasm for a British extraterritorial detention facility on their soil. 2. Please review my previous comment which discusses the whole thing.
    1
  4.  @socillizt4life  1. You overestimate French enthusiasm for a British extraterritorial detention facility on their soil. 2. Please review my previous comment which discusses the whole thing.
    1
  5.  @socillizt4life I never claimed you did. Both have the same French push back. A detention centre is the only meaningful option. I explained what a detention centre is in my previous comment, why try to give a worse explanation back to me?
    1
  6.  @j.a.0088  One of the many reasons the French would not be interested in a British extraterritorial facility on their soil. If the facility does not house the claimant's then under the convention France must house them. That creates a situation where France has to house migrants whilst they undertake a process that France has no control or say over and at the end of it the migrant could be denied and be Frances problem. And of course France being part of the EU, would make the EU a stakeholder in the discussions too.
    1