Illegal immigration - thread no. 101

Step by step guide to avoiding deportation - Charity backed by the home office.
It's a blackbelt barrister video.

I've no idea. I presumed they simply didn't have passports or correct travel/ID docs anyway. So they must have their ways.

Plus the business of traffickers is multi billions worth.

Social media marketing means they can reach whomever.

I’m not sure how we have the convention and tear gas on French beaches, legally.

If they’re throwing their passports into the channel, how will they be identified and checked?

@Papyrophile exactly that, and it was what was needed at the time. I know the Mail is disliked here, but this article about the Manston holding centre can't all be fiction. Those running the country don't appear to have the will to take any meaningful action. I feel concerned, not for me or my generation, but for the future.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14833591/Inside-migrant-gateway-Britain-staff-say-TINDERBOX-Manston-illegal-boat-migrants-taken-processing-truth-happens-alarming-scandalous.html

Trouble is that when the framework was drafted in 1951, Europe had raw recent memories of war. Then until the end of the century, the wars were mostly shorter and displaced fewer people, many of whom returned when crises ended. After that the internet, until now, every man and dog now has a smart phone and sees a world that looks like paradise. If life and prospects suck, it's easy to see why people make the journey.

I agree with this actually. We are literally welcoming everyone with open arms, and we need to stop that.

The only deterrent to small boats and the gangs who profit from them would be automatic decline of right to remain to anyone coming by that method but that'd be contrary to the section in the UN Declaration of Human Rights about the right to claim asylum. I fear the only way countries can and will tackle it is withdrawal from the Declaration which will have terrible consequences for other issues. But it's a very different world to the one we had when it was written and agreed. Just like the US constitution with its right to bear arms didn't envision automatic shotguns capable of firing dozens of rounds in a few seconds, agreement with the principles of the UN Declaration didn't mean we agreed to house and feed hundreds of extra young men on a daily basis who come here coordinated by internet while corrupt lawyers tell them what to say to drag cases through the court for years.

Agreed. The taxpayer can't support everyone who fancies a new life here. Why should someone who's never paid into the NHS make waiting lists longer? A points system is the only way forward, it works for NZ and Aus.

Prevent saying promoting 'cultural nationalism' being a reason someone might be referred to them is stupidly irresponsible. People being scared to openly discuss these issues leaves the far right with a monopoly on it and their extremists are the ones who are a danger to migrants, not people concerned about classroom sizes and a collapsing NHS.

Armed forces should be on the shores to prevent any illegal immigrant invading this country.

yes, I assume they would need to be processed in France and some would stay there (and a some would come here and some would go to other European countries). Unless the law is changed so that fewer people qualify for asylum then they have to go somewhere.

You can only do this if those people are still processed where they are returned. If they are granted asylum do they stay in France? How would you ensure the numbers weren’t exceptionally high?

It's.almost (like Australia) that we need a third country that agrees to take immigrants for processing.....

Yes I think that the only way to ‘stop the boats’ is to agree that everyone intercepted in the channel would be returned to France. I guess the French might agree to that but only if we agreed to take a significant number via safe legal routes.

the problem is that won’t be politically palatable because it would probably mean taking more migrants than we do now.

We can't afford to take all the legal migrants either. So I'm not sure making the legal route to the UK easier would be a good thing for the UK.

The reason many of the immigrants come illegally is because they know they wouldn't qualify to enter the UK legally.

Aus is pretty much the country that has resolved this. And if people want the same with crossings it’s that or opting out of international law.

On Sudan I wondered how you thought other countries could step in. Realistically

Usually deterrence works for a while but then other routes open up and the numbers go up again. A quick google tells me that Italy’s asylum seeking Numbers have increased. Now there might be other factors to that but it’s a fact that the biggest predictor of asylum seeking numbers is what is going on the world.

Australia is in a unique position geographically and it’s not comparable to Europe with its myriad of entry ways at all. Its approach has also been inhumane.

And no I don’t have a proposal to solve the Sudan war unfortunately.

Well I should imagine that's a tiny minority and please think about what you are saying. There are plenty of British people locked up in foreign jails facing death penalties or inhumane conditions and we do very little and in some cases we do nothing. So why the hell is it our responsibility to care for people from countries with human rights infraction. We can't police the world and under your argument how many countries out there have questionable human rights.... Russia, Israel, Turkey, Hungary, Most of South America, Yeman, Iran, Iraq......that's a lot of people who could claim asylum.

Yes we should uphold our values but not at the cost of letting Farage into number 10. A line must be drawn with clear rules...come here without a visa and you will almost certainly be sent home.

@OdrasAus shows deterrence does work. And Italy too has reduced crossings by 60%. It can work but their electorates were ready to vote for it.

Can you say how you’d end fighting and violence in Sudan?

You can only send people back to France if they agree to process all claims you will not do as a safe alternative country. A bit like Aus do with an island but France.

It won’t be a deterrent like the Aus system so they’d be overwhelmed with processing. Not sure you’d get a yes from France on that one.

I am taking about the EU also as well. No you are completely right. Most on these boats came from Syria, Afghanistan and Iran so not easy to solve the situations there.

It’s not a responsibility, it makes sense to try and solve humanitarian crisis elsewhere. We are all part of the world and we’ll ultimately feel the impact of these crises

If all Europe did this, and opened safe and legal routes and funded the camps in the low and middle income countries where 75% of the world’s asylum seeking population is. Then the number of asylum seekers arriving via irregular means would reduce.

But it would take time and would be deeply unpopular so we are stuck with meaningless slogans like Stop the boats. Deterrence has already been proven not to work.

@EasternStandard any safe routes involving people in the groups currently coming by boat would need to be agreed with the EU so that provisions similar to the Dublin Convention can be adopted.

In other words send them back to France.

@BromptotooI know. But I’m interested in how you’d resolve people applying outside your limits as per international law?

@EasternStandard there's another thread on safe routes:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/politics/5299022-asylum-how-does-it-work-what-would-providing-safe-routes-look-like?page=1

Ok so you have a limit as in your pp.

What’s to stop people who would be granted asylum but are not able to proceed due to the quota arriving by boat and applying?