Quote Originally Posted by poop
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.

Quote Originally Posted by ong
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.
Quote Originally Posted by poop
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.