It is not illegal to be an asylum seeker

[antelopevalley]

It is legal to cross the channel in a boat and claim asylum when you reach Britain. People who do this are not illegal, they are acting within the law.

Quite. The lack of humanity on display here is astounding.

There’s, quite rightly, an internationally recognised right to claim asylum and to not be penalised for entering illegally, but it’s still an offence under section 24(1)a.

As I said people flee to the nearest place of safety - which is where they feel safe. Crossing the channel in one of the migrant boat can result in these most awful tragedies - that is why I believe they need to be illegal to prevent any more deaths.
I believe we have a moral responsibly to take refugees but not those who cross the channel in this way who are at the mercy of those who organise the boats

@Fladdermus Unfortunately the lack of humanity no longer surprises me. I have become ultra cynical about most people. They will weep for a white child drowned in Britain, but not a black child drowned in the English channel.

Tomorrow on Mumsnet:
Why can’t I find a flat to rent?
Why is there no available social housing.
I can’t get an appointment with a GP
My first choice school is full
etc etc etc.

@Allthegoodnamesarechosen Why are you repeating racist myths that someone on this thread has already shown are not true?

If they have family here is there not a legal way of coming here?

If they are being trafficked to work here in drugs/sex trade then they wouldn't be claiming asylum would they?

12 years of a Tory government.

So how do you suggest they get here under the current legislation?

@toomuchlaundry For spouses yes although it can take a long time. For other relatives, usually not.

Getting a spousal visa is a painful enough process for a Brit returning to the UK with a foreign spouse.

Why do you keep ignoring the solution of offering safe passage, @twelly? Why don't we have a moral responsibility to offer that combined with an efficient asylum processing system?

And the BBC continue to parrot the phrase 'illegal channel crossings' without anyone challenging it. It's a tiny problem when compared to strikes, cost of living, underfunded NHS crumbling, schools being expected to run with no more money, poverty, social care grossly understaffed... but it's much easier to point at the people escaping an awful life and blame them for everything, isn't it? I've seen many times the statistic that when asylum claims are processed, 80% are granted, which means most (not all) are genuinely escaping war, violence or persecution.

Can we do a court case against the BBC for this? Or something else?

I am not ignoring the point about offering safe passage - what I saying is that we need to stop the current situation in the channel which has had awful consequences.

I think this is a really complex situation - ideally the UK should have a way alongside other safe countries of processing people in those nations located geographically close to the source of conflict/persecution. This way we then stop the illegal traffic across the channel.

The Refugee Convention has no section 24(1)a.

Well if no one is there to find out (there isn't) then how could we know ?

And until we do that the current situation will continue. People don't do these dangerous journeys on a whim, they do them because they perceive they have no other option. It's in our gift but we are choosing not to give and expecting everyone rose to pick up the pieces.

A processing centre in France has been suggested but not progressed. Unsurprisingly, refugee camps near countries in conflict tend to be very busy and fairly chaotic, and it's not really practical to expect them to accommodate thousands of people whilst other countries grind through their asylum processes potentially for months or years on end. If anything that will simply encourage more dangerous crossings.

So why not just process claims here after offering safe passage?

Last year the government closed the Syria resettlement scheme

The UK has announced the closure of the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS), which offered safety to 20,000 refugees fleeing the Syrian crisis over the last five years or so.
(March 2021, UNHCR)

This "small boat" phrase is new too isn't it? It's everywhere at the moment, all over government and the media. "People on small boats". It seems a deliberate attempt at dehumanising and othering.

As well as it being untrue that refugees have to claim asylum in the first safe country, there is nothing stopping them claiming asylum in more than one country.

Yes, I know. I was referring to UK immigration law. I didn’t think I needed to clarify this because I thought it was fairly obvious that the international 1951 Convention wouldn’t specifically list and refer to the individual laws of each country that signed up to it. Clearly not.

Look, I’m not really interested in falling out with you over it. It’s tedious for both of us and there are families out there who have lost their loved ones in the most awful way today, and who potentially aren’t going to find out until they can be traced, so I don’t suppose it really matters in the grand scheme of things. If you don’t want to accept that I’m right, then feel free not to; it’s no skin off my nose.

@SerendipityJane but if they don’t all claim asylum then those ones are illegal surely

How would we know ? Yes, you can assume they are. But it seems international law doesn't work that way. And since the UK is rather needing international law to work, it's probably not a good idea to flout it. Hence Dishi Rishi being constrained to tell his headbanging chums he won't condone it.