There wasn't a problem in 2007.
There's been an explosion is small boat crossings
80,000 illegals in boats forecast to come in this year.
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
There wasn't a problem in 2007.
There's been an explosion is small boat crossings
80,000 illegals in boats forecast to come in this year.
I’m not sure cheering on BNP policy is quite the zinging defence you think it is.
Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention (to which the UK is a signatory) states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. The Convention features no obligation for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach.
Yes, the government is now seeking to flout this convention, but it is not currently illegal to cross the Channel in a small boat and claim asylum.
The Convention is not enforceable law in the UK. What is your response to s.24?
Of course it does. All immigrants are effectively asylum seekers, or they call themselves that. Of course, we know, when tested, many are not.
There is an argument, under the current law, that migrants that are picked up in mid-Channel may not breach the Immigration Act.
Last edited:
This, from your document:
"Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK, Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”."
Of course, entering the UK illegally does not preclude a migrant from claiming asylum
Thus, if they are claiming asylum, they are not illegal immigrants.
Specifically, refugees seeking asylum in the UK can’t be penalised for entering illegally if they are claiming asylum and coming from a place where their life or freedom are threatened. They may also stop over in other “safe” countries en route to the UK.
There is no lawful restriction against people choosing the country in which they want to seek asylum, and the people crossing the Channel are not committing any unlawful act in doing so, according to Christopher Desira, human rights and immigration solicitor at Seraphus law firm.
Look at the quote from the document you put up. It says crossing the Channel without authorisation is illegal. But, if an asylum seeker does enter the UK illegally, they will not be penalised for entering the country illegally if..etc
They are illegal immigrants. They can claim asylum when they arrive here illegally. That is why MSM quite rightly calls them "illegal immigrants", and those that come in according to immigration laws are legal migrants
My last word on this. Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. It is not illegal to claim asylum. At the point someone steps off a boat without permission to enter the country, they could be considered an illegal immigrant, but if they immediately claim asylum, this is not a valid legal description. If their asylum claim subsequently fails, their legal status changes, but not before.
What you are confusing is the difference in being an illegal immigrant (by arriving without authorisation) which you've conceded, and a legal asylum claimant which they can become on landing. A successful application by the latter, would give them legal status to stay. But they would still have arrived as an illegal immigrant under the immigration laws. As opposed to a legal migrant who comes in according to the immigration laws and is granted asylum.
Last edited:
Braverman got caught out on the 100 million lie, surprised you repeated it. For balance and impartiality the actual number of people ‘on the move’ ie who have actually left their own country, is estimated to be 26 million. And only a tiny percentage of them want to come to the U.K.
I’ve lost track on exactly what your objections to immigration are about. I remember you used to say that this country is already full/overcrowded and we can’t take any more. This would seem to be an objection to any more immigration, not just ‘illegal’ immigration and asylum seekers. Now you seem more exercised about people arriving on boats, especially (to use another Braverman trope) ‘Albanian criminals’.
As far as I can see Brexit has given the government all the tools it could possibly need to radically reduce both legal and illegal immigration, and to deter asylum seekers. What they lack is either the operational ability or the political will to implement stuff. A huge amount of legal immigration is now Indian, Chinese and other students who come to study, and are allowed to stay on to work and bring family over. Cutting these numbers would reduce University income massively and require the British taxpayer to step in, and also it’s pretty obvious that these immigrants are net contributors to our economy. But if we are ‘full’ surely they have to go……
Any illegal immigrant - as Stroller has pointed out, this is anyone who arrives here without permission and doesn’t claim asylum - can, if caught, be deported. Why the Border Force/Police whoever is so **** at doing this will not be solved by legislation.
Presumably a lot of illegal immigrants claim asylum just to try and play the system. Though of course the vast majority of asylum seekers from many countries - Syria, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan - are granted asylum. Even the majority of ‘criminal Albanians’ get it. The problem with our asylum system is the glacial speed at which cases are assessed - this has got considerably worse over the last couple of years. Again, an operational failing, not a legal failing. This new law is just window dressing, propaganda to satisfy the ‘get them out’ tendency, it won’t make any practical difference, just like the Rwanda plan hasn’t.
Lot of talk about ‘safe and legal pathways’ They only seem to exist for 3 specific groups:
2.9 million Hong Kong British National Overseas citizens, over 150,000 have arrived here or applied so far, perhaps a total of 300k are expected to - but could be much more. Are you in favour or should they be included in the ‘annual cap’?
Presumably the entire population of Ukraine could come if they find enough sponsors. 160,000 plus have so far. In favour or not Goldie?
Finally, and from my perspective most shamefully, we recognised that some Afghans were at risk when we ran away from Afghanistan because of their association with the British army and other anti Taliban links. We said we’d take a maximum of 20,000 of them over several years through three pathways - the evacuation itself (which counts for the great majority of Afghans who have arrived via pathways so far), Pathway 2 - referrals of vulnerable people from the UN Commissioner for Refugees - we’ve taken 4 (four) people by this route so far, and Pathway 3 - applications from those at risk because of links to U.K. forces etc, with 1500 places available - 0, nought, zero people arrived via this pathway so far…..and now it’s closed. Should we allow Afghan refugees in Goldie?
There is of course another group. We are free of the (complete fantasy) threat of half a billion EU citizens desperately trying to get into the U.K., but one remnant clings on…..there are 6.5 million Irish passport holders who have the right to come here, claim benefits, receive healthcare, even vote in some circumstances…….aaaargh! Of course we have the right, all 67 million of us, to go and live there as well. Just like we did when we were in the EU. Should we end this arrangement or include it in the annual cap?
Anyway, long ramble, but where do you stand legal v illegal v asylum seeker immigration? Are we full or should we just exclude certain groups? Should the ‘cap’ be for all immigration or just asylum seekers?
As an aside, has anyone else applied for and got the successor to the EHIC reciprocal health care travel card? It’s called GHIC (G=Global). Worth having, but the design of the bit of plastic you receive makes it look like a Patriotic Alternative membership card……
Last edited:
An interesting post, Stan.:
1. Where do you get the 26m migrants on the move figure from? This WEF article suggests 272million
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/iom-global-migration-report-international-migrants-2020/
2. What I want is controlled immigration. Migrants arriving legally, proper vetting and an annual cap on numbers. I am concerned about density of population, you're right, and strains on local services throughout the UK. The south-east of England is the most densely populated in Europe, rivalled by Holland. Since 2015, the UK has taken 1/2 million people from Afghanistan, HK, Ukraine and elsewhere. We do our bit, but we have a right to protect our borders.
3. You seem to be suggesting that an illegal immigrant ceases to be an illegal immigrant when he/she claims asylum. Is that what you're saying, and if so, what's the basis? As I said to Strolls, they become a legal asylum seeker but they still entered illegally and are therefore an illegal immigrant, unless and until they are successful, in which case they are a succesful asylum seeker that entered the country illegally.
4. I agree the asylum processing system needs a complete overhaul, though of course, since legal applications will be capped annually, this should help once the backlog is cleared.
5. British National Overseas - since we owe a separate duty to them, this figure should be added to the annual cap. You ask about Ukraine. That would form part of the annual cap. I guess in an emergency, figures could be "loaned" from a following year. There needs to be some flexibility here.
6. I agree with you on Afghan interpreters etc I felt the same about the Gherkas. We're not talking huge numbers here. They certainly should be first on the list of asylum seekers.
7. Ireland is, of course, a special case. I don't regard it like other EU countries, so special concessions should apply.
Good article, and good to see a name put to it. Hyper-tokenism. My gripe is that it's manipulation of the masses. I don't like being manipulated, and generally, I see it coming.