Britain outside the EU

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Here are some answers to your questions: https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-in-the-uk.html

Illegal immigrants are not classed or counted as asylum seekers.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Illegal immigrants are not classed or counted as asylum seekers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-53734793

What are the current rules for claiming asylum in the UK?

Many of the migrants crossing the English Channel claim asylum once they arrive in the UK. Asylum seekers hope to receive refugee status, meaning they can stay.

They must prove they cannot return to their home country because they fear persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, gender identity or sexual orientation.

They can include their partner and any children under 18 in the application if they are also in the UK.

Decisions are made by a caseworker. They look at things such as the country of origin of the asylum seeker, or evidence of discrimination

https://fullfact.org/immigration/can...-uk-illegally/

In reference to migrants attempting to cross the Channel to get from France to the UK, Boris Johnson said “If you come illegally, you are an illegal migrant, and I’m afraid the law will treat you as such.”

This is not correct in all cases.

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”.

A lot depends here on how to interpret which country people are “coming directly from”. It could be argued, for instance, that as the people crossing the channel are coming directly from France—which is not the country they initially fled—they don’t have the right to claim asylum in the UK.

However, in 1999 a UK judge ruled that “some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.” The judge specified that “any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere.

This means people who enter the UK by illegal means can legitimately make a claim for asylum, even after passing through other “safe” countries, provided they do so directly after arriving.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Illegal immigrants are not classed or counted as asylum seekers.

And those arriving in boats aren't always going to be here illegally until their legal routes to stay in the UK through our existing laws and international obligations have been exhausted.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

And those arriving in boats aren't always going to be here illegally until their legal routes to stay in the UK through our existing laws and international obligations have been exhausted.

But we are allowing the importation of terrorists as I don’t think Emad Al Swealmeen is a scouse name. If he was called Barry Al Swealmeen I could buy it.

I’m not saying he came here in that way but he was Syrian and amongst the Syrian, Iraqi, Libyan, Afghan etc etc entrants we are inviting upon ourselves harm.

Liverpool Women's Hospital explosion: Man killed named as Emad Al Swealmeen https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...yside-59298586

I also love how the BBC phrase it as the “man killed in the explosion”. Like he was an innocent bystander or something.

The correct term should have been “ the terrorist carrying the bomb was killed in the explosion”

This may need it’s own thread.

Originally Posted by Carth

We could turn them back if we had the bottle, sadly that's gone the same way as a sense of humour . . it might offend someone

How would we turn them back?

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Pierre

This may need it’s own thread.

Yes

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

How would we turn them back?

it looks like we can't Hugh, for many reasons both legal and moral

We can't stop them coming, and we can't return them when they arrive.
For these reasons we should now concentrate efforts on making sure their trip is as safe and comfortable as possible . . it's only £20 a week at worst, and much more preferable than the UK Govt. throwing £Millions at the French wouldn't you think?

There are many who point out that we can't do this that and the other about these poor souls and their desperate plight and, as usual, the result is that nothing ever seems to get done . . . it's a real shame that nobody has bought any tickets yet, it makes me wonder if anyone really wants to stop them crossing rough seas in a dinghy.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Carth

it looks like we can't Hugh, for many reasons both legal and moral

We can't stop them coming, and we can't return them when they arrive.
For these reasons we should now concentrate efforts on making sure their trip is as safe and comfortable as possible . . it's only £20 a week at worst, and much more preferable than the UK Govt. throwing £Millions at the French wouldn't you think?

There are many who point out that we can't do this that and the other about these poor souls and their desperate plight and, as usual, the result is that nothing ever seems to get done . . . it's a real shame that nobody has bought any tickets yet, it makes me wonder if anyone really wants to stop them crossing rough seas in a dinghy.

The problem with your idea of funding transport for them, Carth, is that this will encourage migrants to come here in even greater numbers. We simply do not have the capacity to let them all in, and this country voted to control immigration.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The problem with your idea of funding transport for them, Carth, is that this will encourage migrants to come here in even greater numbers. We simply do not have the capacity to let them all in, and this country voted to control immigration.

But how will we virtue signal how tolerant we are to the world if we don't do this, i can't wait to get a jihadi nut case move in next door.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The problem with your idea of funding transport for them, Carth, is that this will encourage migrants to come here in even greater numbers. We simply do not have the capacity to let them all in, and this country voted to control immigration.

Some people may agree with what you say.

Others will cite that these immigrants will ensure the UK becomes more prosperous.
They'll integrate nicely into society and do all the jobs nobody else wants. Housing, health care and education won't be an issue, and the crime rate won't rise any faster than if they weren't here.

Given the benefits that these immigrants bring, we should be encouraging as many as we can to come here from all over the world . . . which brings the question, how much is an economy flight for a family of 8 from Mexico?

We may have to up the cost to £40 a week . . . no worries

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Carth

Some people may agree with what you say.

Others will cite that these immigrants will ensure the UK becomes more prosperous.
They'll integrate nicely into society and do all the jobs nobody else wants. Housing, health care and education won't be an issue, and the crime rate won't rise any faster than if they weren't here.

Given the benefits that these immigrants bring, we should be encouraging as many as we can to come here from all over the world . . . which brings the question, how much is an economy flight for a family of 8 from Mexico?

We may have to up the cost to £40 a week . . . no worries

We could subsidise it ,from the foreign aid budget

[Carth]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

We could subsidise it ,from the foreign aid budget

There you go, that's just what we need, innovative ideas to get us moving in the right direction.

We could possibly arrange flights using military aircraft that are just sitting unused . . keep these ideas coming folks

[Carth]

Double post - whooopee

Does anyone else think that the EU (Poland) are using some pretty despicable methods to prevent refugees from claiming asylum at their border?

Strikes me as a bit odd that we can't turn refugee boats around, but they can use barbed wire fencing, gas and water cannons to keep them out.

If the Dublin treaty is so brilliant, why don't they let them in and then kick them back out

[BenMcr]

National and international laws for land and water are different.

Also the Dublin Treaty is between EU countries plus some others. Like us now, Belarus is not a party to it.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

National and international laws for land and water are different.

Also the Dublin Treaty is between EU countries plus some others. Like us now, Belarus is not a party to it.

So Poland can't return them to the country they came from? That's a farce if true.

anyway - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/59233244

. . there are reports that some are being pushed back to Belarus by Polish border guards - despite international law stating that anyone seeking protection must be given access to the asylum process, even if they have crossed a border illegally.

and

Poland's parliament has passed an amendment allowing border guards to immediately expel migrants who cross the border illegally, which is likely to be signed into law.

A similar law was passed in Lithuania in August. Since then about 6,800 migrants have been stopped from entering Lithuania.

Why can't the UK pass a similar law, we don't still need the EU to allow it do we?