Why isn’t the law being changed to allow deportations?

[Hominim]

Just that really. Can’t understand why successive governments haven’t changed the law to stop deportations being blocked. Why does nobody want to do it? Reform will no doubt. Better to get in there first?

It was a cynical ploy by the tories starting with T May. They planned to reduce immigration by making it very hard to get here. They shut down all routes. Right now only Ukrainians can apply for asylum from Poland.

That's why they keep saying "We're an island".

You're here illegally though, does that mean we can remove some of your rights?

Nigel Farage is the prime reason that the small boats issue exists. 15 years ago it wasn't a problem as we had a somewhat efficient system and legal routes to access it.

The Tories' incompetence and inability to stand up to Farage is what led to austerity and Brexit - now the legal routes to access the system are largely blocked to anyone who would realistically need to use them, hence boats crossing the channel. The Tories decimating the system has lead to the need for hotels being used to handle the backlog of people.

How anyone can possibly think that more Farage and Tories in a lighter colour of blue will solve any of this is incomprehensible to me. They will clearly only make everything much worse.

If only Starmer wasn't such a wet fucking lettuce.

Keir won’t as he doesn’t want them gone, spent his career keeping them here…

We had lorry arrivals pre Brexit. Asylum claims were just as high in the early 2000s

It's called Criminal Justice not Victim Justice, which says it all in so many instances. Perhaps the question we should ask is 'Who does the law actually serve?'

If the numbers were similar, why weren't there hotels full of asylum seekers back then?

This might sound dramatic but the only other option I see is a detainment centre in the British isles.

You are access to UK is denied. If you don’t want to be deported then you are detained until you choose somewhere to go.

Asylum seekers quite possibly are here legally. It is a basic feature of international
law that there is an ability to claim asylum where merited.

Of course it’s quite correct that their claims should be investigated and they should be deported if there is no evidence to back it up. But the problem is that there are not currently the skills or resources to do this so the Home Office are trying to just ignore the process and bung people on planes/ flights. Thankfully the judiciary are not prepared to do this, despite political pressure.

The law is basically fine, it’s the fact that it takes 500 days to investigate and decide a claim that’s not. Nothing to do with lefty lawyers, everything to do with underinvestment, lack of critical thinking skills and focussing on daily mail headlines.

Idk tbh without looking up what happened but up until very recently the highest asylum number was 2002 / 3

I don’t know where it is now, but Yvette Cooper as Home Secretary said something about opting out of the bits of the ECHR that were being “bent” by certain judiciary in favour of undeserving cases.

The UK does already have a legal process for removing people whose asylum claim is unsuccessful. If it bothers you so much, how about you read up on it? While you're at it, you might come across some other helpful nuggets, like:

• It is not illegal to be a refugee or a person seeking asylum.

• There is no international law that states a refugee must seek asylum in the first country they reach when fleeing. In fact, even UK case law has stated there is an element of choice open to refugees as to where they claim asylum, with the judge stating, "“any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere.

• There is a European regulation which allows a European country to return a person seeking asylum to the first European country they reached...but the UK doesn't want to be part of Europe anymore, does it?

https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/stay-informed/explainers/the-truth-about-asylum/

As to why people don't necessarily wish to stay in the first European country they reached, just some of the reasons could be - they are trying to make it to family elsewhere; they don't speak that first country's language, but can speak e.g. French or English; the first country they reached may not be safe for them (e.g. it may be illegal to be gay).

So you mean we just deport anyone as we see fit, regardless if there is a reason or if they are even here illegally? We already have laws that alllow deportation for those who are here illegally and don’t have right for asylum. If a deportation is being stopped then it’s because there might not be reasons to deport.

How do you suppose we should find out which people arriving are genuine asylum seekers from oppressive and war torn countries, and which are illegal (presumably economic?) immigrants?

How would you work this out @Hominim ?

We used to have a system that could largely deal with the number of people applying.

Between 2010 and 2020, we somehow ended up with a dysfunctional system that's literally failing everybody - from the asylum seekers themselves, to the citizens of the country and the public services involved (and that also applies to healthcare, education, local government, etc, etc, etc).

Single celled amoebas could work out the causes of it all, and certainly wouldn't be remotely considering voting the people at the centre of it into power.

But KS won’t be the PM forever. Do you trust the next person not to change the mirror image bill to take away your rights?

The Tories move into reform’s position on migration to attract the voters from them. Look how successful that was for them. You could change the bill and still end up with Farage as PM or someone even less scrupulous who could change whichever parts they wanted.

The law is not changed because those in power don't want it changed. The is both parties so far. Reform won't either. The views on the West London dinner party circuit are more influential than the wishes of the voters.

You need to actually think this thought through. Who will pay for the creation and staffing of the 'detention centre'? Who will pay for the cost of meals, clothing, education and medical care required by detainees? How do you feel about children being effectively jailed for possibly 18 years? Or children being separated from their loving, caring parents and placed into a children's home, where there will again be further costs to the state (not just the direct costs of food and clothing, but the indirect costs of mental and physical health disorders caused by trauma and forcible separation from their parents)? Then once they reach the age of 18, they can legally be removed or threated with life in the same detention centre their parents were placed in.That will all cost more than simply providing sufficent funding and trained, knowledgable staff to apply the legal process we have in place now. What impact do you think your approach will do to the homegrown terrorism threat?

You don't arrive illegally as such. When you arrive you claim asylum and then are processed but that can take a long time as many arrive undocumented - some may consider this deliberate, but also consider they are often arriving from war torn areas after many months if not years in oppression and have often had arduous journeys.

You may become illegal if no asylum is claimed, or you are refused asylum and then overstay or overstay a more official visa e.g. work or student.

It could be that the public were not really aware of numbers in lorries until the suffocation sparked backlash.

There’d be no way to know how many arrive a day as they were hidden. But the numbers were just as high back then. Plus we’re not the only ones facing it, non Brexit countries are facing the same / Greece, Germany, ROI

I agree with you that it’s problematic though

This ^ it's to ensure we don't commit human rights abuses, deport people who should not be deported and we don't deport people to places where they could be killed. We do deport people when it's appropriate and due process has been followed. These are important safeguards. Saying we should just be able to remove the law to deport as we want is like removing laws around the right to a fair trial so I could just throw you away in prison for life if I felt like you might be guilty with no right to appeal. It would be unethical.

Wtf are you on about?

This.

Lawyers control this country. They have no interest in removing strung out appeals because their mates are making too much money out of legal aid.

Remember that these people all studied together. They’re palsy-walsy. They did their bar together. They all come from the same kinds of families. They don’t give a fuck that you can’t see a doctor or that your daughter is sexually harassed by groups of migrant men loitering outside the local Holiday Inn.

I fucking hate lawyers

@ ExtraOnions -
“Would you prefer a system like the USA, where people are being deported without any sort of process?”

When it comes to those invading our country by crossing the Channel in small boats, I absolutely would. The amount of money we spend on housing and looking after them, to say nothing of endless legal appeals all paid for by legal aid (the taxpayer) is outrageous. We have our own who need looking after - at the moment, we seem to be a dumping ground for anyone from anywhere who can get here - and our useless irresponsible government have actually said that their rights are more important than ours. Enough already.