Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

UK will finally off shore illegal asylum seekers crossing the channel

Options
1151618202132

Comments

  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    it would also be clueless to say a British warship entering French waters would be an act of war.

    it would also be clueless to presume that the only ships and boats that the British government control are warships.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,425 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    Are there people who want the UK to rip up treaties and break international law because they want the troubles to kick off again? There has to be at least a few Republicans who think this is their time to start off what they didn't finish and make their move.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,464 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    An asylum seeker can never be "illegal" - to claim asylum is a 100% legal event under international law (despite anything Farage and the Daily Express say).



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Who said anything about seeking asylum? There are legal ways to enter a country and illegal ways to enter a country.

    Good article here in the times, highlighting that UK judges understand their government is held to account in parliament for the laws it passes rather than in the courts as that is how national democracies work, while the EUHCR sits anonymously behind closed doors and decides what laws a democratically elected government can or cannot enact.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/db562f12-ee4b-11ec-a7ea-792e433452b2?shareToken=3f7ebcd626bb003e33b3d7ea140e5e0d



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,464 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Such people cannot be deemed "illegal" until they have actually entered the country and are dealt with by the authorities and the legal system.

    If they enter the country and then choose to go on the run and not apply for asylum, at that point they become an illegal immigrant, but not before then. In the case of the UK though, this is most often not even possible. We've seen that the dinghies are usually intercepted and Border Force officials are waiting for them on the beach (which is how they are able to announce the daily numbers that have arrived by dinghy).



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 899 ✭✭✭Mike Murdock




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    With respect, these people are not actively fleeing for their lives; France is not a warzone like Yemen. They are paying criminal gangs and facilitating the trade, and crossing into UK waters without consent.

    If it were mostly young women and children, you'd perhaps have the ghost of a point. With Ukraine, almost all are women and children - as the men stay to fight the war.

    I don't believe for a second that the majority of migrants are refugees at all. Throwing documents into the sea so that they are undocumented. That's not the action of genuine refugees.

    And then there's the security question. If even a tiny fraction of those that come are associated with terrorist organisations like ISIS and so forth, that can cause huge difficulties. When David Cameron visited the Syrian refugee camps, he conceded that "probably 2%" are likely to be linked to Islamic extremism.

    50,000+ have already crossed the channel into the UK this year alone. If you do the maths, you can see the likely problems ahead for the UK.




  • Registered Users Posts: 13,380 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    RNLI will go to the nearest port which is almost always going to be in the UK. They patrol UK waters so there will only rarely be a situation where France is closer/quicker.

    For them to go to France would be completely illogical as it would take the boat/crew away from their area of patrol for a needlessly long time. I assume they have inferred permission to dock in France for emergency purposes, but if they started abusing this by docking when there is no emergency then that would cause an issue.



  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 10,229 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    OK dearie, to spell it out for you, can't dump a person on a foreign shore even if you use a bathtub.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]




  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,459 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    UK courts have already thrown out objections, paving the way for the policy to be put into action.

    This is just wrong.

    The UK courts have not ruled on the legality of the policy, what they have refused to do is put an injunction in place to stop the flights until their ruling on the legality. Separately, the UK courts also forced the removal of all but 3 asylum seekers from the plane before it was scheduled for take-off, the ECHR stopped them deporting a mere 3 people to Rwanda.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Ahwell




    Things have changed since the passing of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 in April. This Act does appear to breach international law (the latest craze in the UK apparently) and no doubt that will be trashed out in numerous court cases over the coming years,



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,464 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    One aspect of all this is that it is hugely divisive. Goodness knows what settled asylum seekers in the UK make of it all. The Tory Govt and one half of the population are making it clear that they are most unwelcome, are seen as most likely a bunch of chancers who slipped through the net and are a burden on British society.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I would imagine the majority of asylum seekers, the ones that didn't rely on criminal gangs to smuggle them in to the UK and came through bonafide means, are a bit pissed off that they went to the trouble of doing things properly, when there seems to be an endless amount of do gooders that facilitate people doing it the wrong way.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,464 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    That doesn't make any sense though - the message going out from the Tories, Daily Mail and their readers is that many refugees aren't refugees at all and are "economic migrants" who conned their way into the country, aided by bleeding heart liberal lefty lawyers and courts, plus the ECHR which now needs to be abolished. That they should have stayed in France and the question being asked is "what are they even doing here?".

    The whole debate around asylum seekers is toxic and nasty.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Yiu do know the majority of asylum seekers don’t come to the UK on a cheap decathlon inflatable, don’t you?



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,464 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas



    The idea that the people railing against "illegal immigration" to the UK are fine with refugees and asylum seekers whose claims have been upheld is obviously a nonsense. Their line is that even those refugees are a potential security risk and / or a burden on the state. They would like to see all refugees and asylum seekers refused entry to the UK - they don't even try to conceal it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Ahwell



    I think you got that wrong. The only "bona fide" ways for refugees to enter the UK are Refugee family reunion, Refugee resettlement and Humanitarian visas. According to the Home Office, in the year ending September 2019, 62% of asylum claims were made by those who entered the UK without authorisation, including those who entered by small boat, lorry, or without visas It is not clear how the remaining 38% arrived in the UK, but this may include people who arrived on a visa not designed for claiming asylum, or people who were already in the UK when conditions in their country of origin deteriorated.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I think you’re getting a bit over excited. The immigration thing is something that is affecting all of Europe, it’s just this little bubble that is a little island off an island is somewhat kept away from it all.

    what, in your opinion should be done about the mass of people risking their lives crossing the med and some who risk their lives again by crossing the English Channel?

    should they all be given free reign to enter the uk. Should the uk just abandon any and all border controls?

    I hear lots of criticism, but very few ideas.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    anyone can turn up at the border and ask for asylum, that's kind of how it works. But you have to turn up at a recognised port of entry, not try and enter secretly. The UK is no different to any other country in that regard.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,516 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    You don't HAVE to turn up at a recognised port of entry though.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,761 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    Recent immigrants tend to have a strict view on migration, especially if they came via proper channels.


    They are the ones baring the brunt of it, along with the wider working class.


    It's never the activist in the suburbs, talking about workers in Birmingham having more in common with a worker in Baghdad, about solidarity etc.


    Their class benefits in lower wages, increased demand for rental etc etc.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    if you don't want people to consider your actions suspicious, then you do. If you have a bonafide asylum claim, then what's the problem?

    How would you tackle the issue of people risking their lives and crossing busy shipping lanes in inflatable dinghies from poundland?



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,516 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    I would open a processing office in France, I would process asylum applications there and anyone who is granted asylum I would allow them in the country.


    Now this is the part where you ask "what about the ones who get refused, they will still get boats across the channel"


    Well to that I say during the asylum application process every applicant is fingerprinted and photographed, every applicant must be able to probe who they are and where they have travelled from.

    If after applying for asylum they are refused and subsequently end up on British shores they can be swiftly processed and deported back to their own countries.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    so you would tell people that the UK will process their application, on the condition that they enter France illegally?

    So effectively encouraging more people to risk their lives crossing the med and doing the perilous journey from Italy to France?

    do you not think France and Italy might have a problem with this?

    Maybe Ireland should save everyone hassle and just open up an asylum processing centre in Tripoli and fly them straight to Dublin rather watching them cross two dangerous stretches of water?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Ahwell



    Anyone can't just rock up to a port of entry, there's checks at both ends of a journey, that's why 62% of asylum claims were made by those who entered the UK without authorisation in 2019. Under the new Nationality and Borders Act If an asylum seeker arrives in the UK without valid entry clearance they will be committing an offence and will be liable to prosecution. By doing that the UK is breaching the 1951 Refugee Convention.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    if you apply for a visitors visa, you will gain entry. if you then apply for asylum, you have entered the UK under false pretences and therefore without authorisation. The same applies if you apply for a student visa or if you decide that while transiting airside at Heathrow, you fancy applying for asylum.

    theoretically, the UK puts the same requirements on those claiming asylum as every other European country, the difference being that the UK only has one land border, so rocking up at an entry point is that much harder.

    If you turn up and apply for asylum and you are little more than a chancer trying your luck, then yeah, the UK could prosecute you. The UK also recognises that asylum seekers may have to break the law to seek refuge, so ultimately, it is up to the CPS and the courts to decide the best recourse.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Ahwell



    The 62% are those who entered by small boat, lorry, or without visas.

    I don't think The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 does recognise that asylum seekers may have to break the law to seek asylum, penalising refugees who arrive in the UK via illegal means it is incompatible with the Refugee Convention 1951.

    Post edited by Ahwell on


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,516 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    No that's not what I am saying, those asylum seekers will make their way to France anyway because there is no way to apply from thier own countries.

    The French have actually asked the UK to set up asylum processing centers in France



    "

    French officials have already suggested that British immigration officials process asylum requests in northern France from migrants camped out around the major ports on France's coast."



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The French are also complaining that lax employment law is drawing migrants, should the UK also tighten up its laws on who can and can't work, maybe bring in an ID card (god, the politics forum would combust if the Tories suggested that)

    Why stop at France, why not just open up a processing centre in Italy. Maybe the French should do the same, to stop people attempting the journey through the Alps in winter.

    Better still, why not just open a centre in Tripoli, like err.... oh that's it. No one.

    Why should the UK do something that no other country is doing? Why doesn't Ireland do it instead?



Advertisement