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.

Rude!

I have not read the full thread but here are some things that stand out to me: I worked in immigration law for 12 years..
An asylum seeker may or may not be legally in a country.
Anyone arriving on UK or other borders without the necessary visa/leave to remain is illegally entering that country.
It does not matter from the point of law WHY that person enters illegally, and any political point made about the illegal entry point is political not legal because every country knows (those signatories to the 1951 Convention) that most asylum seekers will enter illegally.
People are detained if they enter illegally so they don’t “disappear”, rightly or wrongly.
War is not a valid reason for claiming asylum.
Poverty is not a valid reason for claiming asylum.
Humanitarian Protection is the applicable route for people escaping war.
There is no basis in the 1951 Convention to set up safe routes to claim asylum.
There are other conventions in place for human rights claims and a process for family reunion.
It doesn’t matter where people originate from but if they risk their lives crossing the channel from France to the UK it actually should be France who is responsible for stopping it (there are rules about third country claims that is agreed with France, Italy and other European countries).
It is not obviously discriminatory to try to prevent illegal movement because the UK also has safeguarding responsibilities for those arriving from abroad.

the UK also has safeguarding responsibilities for those arriving from abroad.

Which it discharges with the same effort it puts into it's own domestic citizens.

@SerendipityJane
Perhaps. It does not change the law.
Its like you could feel strongly that a group of people eg thieves who steal to support addictions should not be described as criminals because they have extenuating circumstances.. you’d be wrong , provided they had a criminal record. If they do something illegal (stealing) they aren’t criminals if they are convicted.
Im not saying you are saying that but the fact is the illegal entry is what is is - a fact. It does not carry consequences if that same person who entered illegally claims asylum.
It can carry a prison sentence if they do not claim asylum because it is every bit “law” and not political to use the phrase “illegal entry” as it is to say “criminally convicted”.
Thats leaving aside what should be done with illegal entrants when they claim asylum but the 1951 signatories don’t have agreed policies on what level of housing or support the claimant receives. And we do pretty well in that regard.
I’ve been in detention centres.
No ideal situation but preferable to the camps some of these people have to live in in France before risking their lives.
It is really horrible all round

Its like you could feel strongly that a group of people eg thieves who steal to support addictions should not be described as criminals because they have extenuating circumstances.. you’d be wrong , provided they had a criminal record. If they do something illegal (stealing) they aren’t criminals if they are convicted. Im not saying you are saying that but the fact is the illegal entry is what is is - a fact. It does not carry consequences if that same person who entered illegally claims asylum.

I am well aware that "crime" and "criminal" are societal constructs, not some sort of moral absolutes.

I think the whole situation is awful and given what has been said about it being illegal to enter via this route then really the govt needs to be more proactive to ensure that those who are thinking about entering this way are put off. The tragic loss of life and danger to the migrants and to those who rescue them is my motivation for saying this.

@SerendipityJane
Im not being snippy with you, nor did I imply you didn’t understand but you know thanks for that comment.

I was hoping you’d see that there were more important things to be concerned about in the circumstances but I can see you’re one of those people.

I tried to explain it to you politely and patiently and I received two very sharp and condescending responses from you. In what universe do you think anyone would want to respond to you with sweetness and light after that? Why would I waste any more of my time trying to explain immigration law to someone who responds in the manner you did? Accept what I’m telling you, or don’t. Your choice.

You might have had a bad day, or you may be going through a difficult time and, if so, I sympathise with that, I really do. But if you want politeness from other people, try bloody using it yourself.

It. Is. Not. Illegal

The UK has a sweet deal, doesn't it? No legal route for asylum seekers, it's an island so it never has to take any refugees. Really great. Except morally.

I am confused as to whether entry in this way is illegal given the comments. I think it should made illegal if its not simply because this then removes the incentive and therefore the traffickers (probably not fully.) If migrants thought entry this way would not allow them enter and would effectively ban further attempts then the traffickers would stop. Processing entry from another country or allowing people to file for entry from another country should be made easier and quicker.

@twelly it is currently not possible to file or process from another country. An exception was made for Ukraine, but otherwise there is no route that leads from another country. People need to realise this. This government is knowingly setting out a way for the UK to ever take any asylum seekers, because they know their voters will love it. People are incredibly naive about this.

It is illegal to enter the UK without leave. That is indisputable. To the best of my knowledge (although happy to be corrected) most countries have a similar law. It’s just easier to cross borders illegally when they’re landlocked. However, we’re signatories to the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees, which means that we recognise that people wanting to claim asylum have no choice but to enter illegally and so shouldn’t be penalised for doing so. You can’t have a person fleeing for their life being prosecuted for having managed to escape the situation. So as long as there are people needing to seek asylum and there is no way of doing so from their home country , there will be traffickers willing to facilitate their journeys from country to country.

I agree the island nature of the Uk makes it different but the channel makes it dangerous hence I think processing migrants in a third country should be what happens and at the same time a stronger approach channel crossings. I believe this due to the risk of death and serious injury

What do you think the stronger approach re the channel crossings should be? What do you think we’re not already doing in the channel that we should start doing?

Your statement is incorrect. We do take in refugees and have done for many years. But unfortunately we can't take in anyone who wishes to come here

I think that there should be no right to apply for asylum if you enter via the channel. I know the channel is patrolled buy I think more resources should be devoted to this and the south coast

We signed up to the 1951 Convention. We cannot say to people that they can’t claim asylum if they came by sea. It doesn’t work like that. We’d be in breach of our obligations under the Convention.

My cousin has just been made redundant from one of the hotels housing the asking seekers.
He has no issue with the asylum seekers, just the government.

We need to find a better way of processing asylum claims, they can take years!

What - France?

@Nagado
I understand what you saying but in my view the current situation is not working so maybe that agreement needs to change to reflect the challenges of today

😂😂😂😅

Nailed it

Nailed it
@MintyFreshOne Hardly. None of those things are as a result of immigration but policies enacted over the last 20 years. Heard of austerity and Margaret Thatcher ?

Which is why there should be an asylum processing system. At the moment there is anything up to a 2 year wait because of cuts by the Tories. If the asylum request is unsuccessful, asylum seeker will be rejected. But bear in mind I think it's 74% of applications are successful.

I think that there should be no right to apply for asylum if you enter via the channel. I know the channel is patrolled buy I think more resources should be devoted to this and the south coast

twelly well.... how do you suggest asylum seekers get there then? When there are no safe routes?

And for all those saying stop in France, stop in Poland, stop in another European country, just not us.... so... because we are an island we shouldn't take anyone? And what about the fact that some can speak English, they have language skills that would fit in here, and their Grandmother, parents or Uncle lives here?

I would ask you to view this please
twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1602695058712834048

Labour MP Chi Onwurah, who's mother fled the Biafran War in the 1960s, asks Rishi Sunak to apply his asylum proposals to her family.
He can barely look at her during his answer.

Still rude!