Britain outside the EU

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Carth

Is that because nobody knows?

When/why is it illegal for a refugee (or whatever they want to be known as at the time) to buy a bus/rail/ferry/plane ticket in order to get to their country of choice and claim asylum?

Simple question . . . politically screwed up answer

Again, this has already been discussed.

Where a land border exists, you can stop migrants crossing - see Poland / Belarus. It's the reason we have UK border force in France / Belgium to create that land border.

The sea borders we have has complications with international maritime law.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Carth

Is that because nobody knows?

When/why is it illegal for a refugee (or whatever they want to be known as at the time) to buy a bus/rail/ferry/plane ticket in order to get to their country of choice and claim asylum?

Simple question . . . politically screwed up answer

If they come by plane, ferry etc then would have to have documentation meaning if their asylum claim fails they can be sent back to their country of origin.
Those crossing illegally will have destroyed ther documents so that they can't be returned. We're stuck with them.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

So, why not allow those wanting to come here to claim in their originating countries ?

Because it makes no sense if they're a persecuted class - they'll be shot, possibly.

It's highly likely that a high percentage of the migrants are economic migrants who want to come here and be paid for by the British taxpayer. Is that what you want? Make it any easier and it will ultimately be millions on their way to Europe.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It's highly likely that a high percentage of the migrants are economic migrants

That's not true
https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/in...eeking-asylum/

63% of applications granted asylum or protection at initial decision stage in the year ending September 2021

https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...-protection-to

In year ending March 2020, 54% of initial decisions on asylum applications were grants of asylum, humanitarian protection or alternative forms of leave (such as discretionary leave or UASC leave). This was the highest initial decision grant rate on record, up from 39% in the previous year.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

That's not true
https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/in...eeking-asylum/



https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...-protection-to

Those stats are meaningless because loads just throw their passports away and refuse to tell anyone who or where they are from so they end up stuck in the system and cannot be deported. Then there are the numbers who just disapear

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Those stats are meaningless because loads just throw their passports away and refuse to tell anyone who or where they are from so they end up stuck in the system and cannot be deported. Then there are the numbers who just disapear

Source for that claim?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

As I posted this earlier, yes and yes - international law allows refugees to claim asylum in any country they choose.

However, international treaties and laws can then be used to return those refugees to a previous country to process the claim - that is what the Dublin Regulation is in the EU and the option we no longer have since we left the EU.

How many did we send back using the Dublin regulation, my guess is not many

Originally Posted by Carth

hmm . . . so why are migrants spending so much money and risking their lives on boats instead of tickets for a ferry crossing?

More so given we can't send them back, there must be something more to it . . .

You have to wonder how many times they'd risked their lives just getting that far

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Surely while part of the EU they could claim asylum on the mainland, get citizenship and then come here anyway so either way we couldn't stop them.


We do have to be mindful that some have left dreadful situations and genuinely need asylum. What is harder to accept is that far too many want to get to the UK. If they are fleeing from something then nearly anywhere safe should be OK, if they are fleeing to something it's slightly different. The threat could be as real but the goal a bit different.

Far to many, is it three or four percent of all those making it into Europe that head for Britain

[Carth]

Originally Posted by pip08456

If they come by plane, ferry etc then would have to have documentation meaning if their asylum claim fails they can be sent back to their country of origin.
Those crossing illegally will have destroyed ther documents so that they can't be returned. We're stuck with them.

decent enough answer.

immigration officer: morning sir, I believe you're from Sudan?
migrant: no, I'm from Iraq.
immigration officer: do you have any proof of that?
migrant: erm no, I lost my passport.
immigration officer: oh I see. Could you tell us your address and occupation when in Iraq, so we can check with friends, neighbours and work colleagues for proof?
migrant: err . . . erm . . err . .
immigration officer: lost your passport and your memory sir?
migrant: . . . . .
immigration officer: can you read this sir? (shows pamphlet)
migrant: . . . . .
immigration officer: forgotten the language too I see, awful what stress can do isn't it

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Source for that claim?

You're just being difficult - you've prolly done the Google search and turned up nothing. But this is in the "realms of". You know as well as anyone that the ones landing on the migrant boats are without documentation - at least many if not most if not all.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You're just being difficult - you've prolly done the Google search and turned up nothing. But this is in the "realms of". You know as well as anyone that the ones landing on the migrant boats are without documentation - at least many if not most if not all.

It was an honest question.

If we want to have a proper discussion about what we do about refugees then we need to that using empirical data and information. Not 'I think', 'I feel' or 'I assume'.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

It was an honest question.

If we want to have a proper discussion about what we do about refugees then we need to that using empirical data and information. Not 'I think', 'I feel' or 'I assume'.

Being purist here is dodging the issue.

In particular you have not refuted what everyone knows, and reported in the Daily Mail. Just needed the right search terms.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cord-high.html

The former chief immigration officer has warned that migrants 'know they've won the jackpot' when they arrive in the UK as the number of Channel crossings hit a record 4,000 for the month yesterday.

Kevin Saunders, former chief immigration officer for the UK Border Force, said the UK was 'very attractive' to migrants adding, 'people know they're not going to be removed' once they arrive.

'People know that they're not going to be removed, this is why they destroy all their documentation.

'It's a real worry because we don't know who people are, because they destroy all their documents, they don't give us their right names, where they come from, or anything along those lines.

'The biggest draw is these people know everything in the United Kingdom is free, they are going to get education, medical treatment, money, accommodation, it's all a big, big draw.'

[BenMcr]

If he's the former chief immigration officer, then I'm sure he's explained exactly what data he is basing his view on and the Daily Mail have verified that before publishing his 'people know' comments?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

If he's the former chief immigration officer, then I'm sure he's explained exactly what data he is basing his view on and the Daily Mail have verified that before publishing his 'people know' comments?

Seph: "Do you refute that most of the illegal migrants have destroyed their documents?

Ben: "Without the full numerated evidence I cannot say that the illegal migrants destroy their documents".

Seph: "You can't take the word of the former chief immigration officer, who surely knows his shit?"

Ben: "Well, if you put it like that ....".

[BenMcr]

Asylum seekers and refugees destroy their documents for many reasons or leave their home countries without their documentation in the first place.

The argument above is that they do that specifically to come to the UK. That's what I'd like to the see the evidence on, and how that view was arrived at.

---------- Post added at 15:00 ---------- Previous post was at 14:56 ----------

Also we have laws where we can charge people with 'documentation offences' where they've destroyed their documents. I can't find this being repealed anywhere.

https://www.ein.org.uk/news/law-soci...ument-offences

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Asylum seekers and refugees destroy their documents for many reasons or leave their home countries without their documentation in the first place.

The argument above is that they do that specifically to come to the UK. That's what I'd like to the see the evidence on, and how that view was arrived at.

<SNIP>

You're stretching this, Ben. The migrants coming to Calais is what we're talking about. Tell me, why do they destroy their documents, as you've accepted they do?

Try this, then: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/key...al-immigration

30. Another material factor is a lack of documentation. Some illegal immigrants will not have had documents i.e. a passport, when they arrived. Others will have purposely destroyed documents to frustrate the returns process. Some countries refuse to re-document their own citizens. Others, such as India, make it as difficult as possible.