foreveryoung Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 2 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: Whether they’re in jail or in a ‘housing / processing centre’ or whatever they call them I’m not sure it makes a lot of difference, perhaps more secure in prison dependent on the category of the facility. I thought it was illegal to enter a country without going through the ‘proper process(es)”, Britain or any other, perhaps I’m wrong? People need to also realise it's only the ones that are met or caught that go to the processing centres, many more just walk in, illegally! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 19 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: Is it not against the law to pay an organised crime gang to dispose of your identity, put you in a overcrowded dingy with the possibility of death to travel over a extremely busy stretch of water. I definitely don't believe that the thing you have written there is on the statute book anywhere, no. Which is why if you are sure that a law is being broken, I'm asking which one. Which criminal offence do you think that they should be being charged with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 5, 2023 Moderator Share Posted January 5, 2023 28 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: They are willingly paying these gangs to travel. In France, they aren't taxis that you pay at the end of the journey. So even if what you are saying is illegal (big if), the crime isn't occuring in UK juristiction, so quite frankly is utterly irrelevant. Regardless of what Sue Ellen and the Daily Heil say 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 20 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: Whether they’re in jail or in a ‘housing / processing centre’ or whatever they call them I’m not sure it makes a lot of difference, perhaps more secure in prison dependent on the category of the facility. I thought it was illegal to enter a country without going through the ‘proper process(es)”, Britain or any other, perhaps I’m wrong? The jail thing was just in response to the comment about creating a deterrent. Nothing would surprise me with this government. If they thought they could charge them with something and jail them I’m sure they would. There are no “proper channels” open to these migrants. They cannot apply for any asylum unless it is in person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 Thing is, if we created asylum centres that they would access without crossing the channel, people might use them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 1 minute ago, Davkaus said: Thing is, if we created asylum centres that they would access without crossing the channel, people might use them. In France? If so, what’s the motivation for them to do it? I don’t think it can be ignored that the multiple countries these folks pass through to get here are almost certainly only too happy to see them get here, or at the least, to attempt to get here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 1 minute ago, bannedfromHandV said: In France? If so, what’s the motivation for them to do it? Sorry, might be being daft, but I'm not entirely sure what your question is, whose motivation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 12 minutes ago, Davkaus said: Sorry, might be being daft, but I'm not entirely sure what your question is, whose motivation? France’s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 (edited) 5 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: France’s One of us is misunderstanding the other here. Maybe it's me. My post was a sarcastic take referencing the probable reason that the UK doesn't bother to open asylum processing centres that people can actually use (i.e., the government has absolutely no interest in making it easier to claim asylum) - those centres could possibly be in France. France has got every motivation to cooperate with that, we'd be doing all the work to set it up, and it'd get people off their hands and in to ours. Edited January 5, 2023 by Davkaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted January 5, 2023 Share Posted January 5, 2023 10 minutes ago, Davkaus said: One of us is misunderstanding the other here. Maybe it's me. My post was a sarcastic take referencing the probable reason that the UK doesn't bother to open asylum processing centres that people can actually use (i.e., the government has absolutely no interest in making it easier to claim asylum) - those centres could possibly be in France. France has got every motivation to cooperate with that, we'd be doing all the work to set it up, and it'd get people off their hands and in to ours. Ah okay, crossed wires then it seems! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrusr Posted January 5, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 5, 2023 28 minutes ago, Davkaus said: One of us is misunderstanding the other here. Maybe it's me. My post was a sarcastic take referencing the probable reason that the UK doesn't bother to open asylum processing centres that people can actually use (i.e., the government has absolutely no interest in making it easier to claim asylum) - those centres could possibly be in France. France has got every motivation to cooperate with that, we'd be doing all the work to set it up, and it'd get people off their hands and in to ours. It is genuinely the easiest way to sort the problem out and I understood it that France is willing for us to do it. It would mean people wouldn’t have to cross the channel to claim asylum and therefore money doesn’t go to the criminal gangs. Win, win. The Rwanda deal money would probably pay for it and then some. Would be nice if Labour actually announced a policy akin to this. Except those that like to ensure there remains a problem so they can justify whatever nonsense they spout to solve the problem. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted January 6, 2023 Share Posted January 6, 2023 1 hour ago, Davkaus said: One of us is misunderstanding the other here. Maybe it's me. My post was a sarcastic take referencing the probable reason that the UK doesn't bother to open asylum processing centres that people can actually use (i.e., the government has absolutely no interest in making it easier to claim asylum) - those centres could possibly be in France. France has got every motivation to cooperate with that, we'd be doing all the work to set it up, and it'd get people off their hands and in to ours. They’d probably even help out with getting potential claimants from all around France to head there first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 6, 2023 Author Moderator Share Posted January 6, 2023 3 hours ago, ml1dch said: Didn't this conversation happen before? And you brought up these "laws"? And someone asked you to cite, or provide a link to the laws that you're talking about? And then you didn't? And got angry about it? Section 40 of the 2022 Nationality and Borders act, which amends section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 to create two new offences: Where a person who requires entry clearance under the immigration rules (almost certainly any small boat arrival) knowingly arrives in the UK without valid entry clearance (section 24(D1), commenced 28 June 2022). Where a person is required under the immigration rules not to travel to the UK without an ETA knowingly arrives in the UK without such an ETA (section 24(E1), not yet commenced)... https://freemovement.org.uk/are-people-crossing-the-channel-in-small-boats-doing-anything-illegal/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKP90 Posted January 6, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted January 6, 2023 18 minutes ago, blandy said: Section 40 of the 2022 Nationality and Borders act, which amends section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 to create two new offences: Where a person who requires entry clearance under the immigration rules (almost certainly any small boat arrival) knowingly arrives in the UK without valid entry clearance (section 24(D1), commenced 28 June 2022). Where a person is required under the immigration rules not to travel to the UK without an ETA knowingly arrives in the UK without such an ETA (section 24(E1), not yet commenced)... https://freemovement.org.uk/are-people-crossing-the-channel-in-small-boats-doing-anything-illegal/ Doesn't that second paragraph effectively make asylum seeking illegal? They can only claim if they are here in person, and being here in person without entry clearance is illegal. Maybe it's more nuanced than that, but it sort of seems like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 6, 2023 Author Moderator Share Posted January 6, 2023 49 minutes ago, HKP90 said: Doesn't that second paragraph effectively make asylum seeking illegal? They can only claim if they are here in person, and being here in person without entry clearance is illegal. Maybe it's more nuanced than that, but it sort of seems like it. Yep. Exactly. If you're Ukrainian or Hong Kong, then you can apply from outside the UK. If you're a persecuted brown person, then not so much. Deliberate and frankly despicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted January 6, 2023 Share Posted January 6, 2023 5 hours ago, blandy said: Yep. Exactly. If you're Ukrainian or Hong Kong, then you can apply from outside the UK. If you're a persecuted brown person, then not so much. Deliberate and frankly despicable. is this the law Braverman stumbled over when asked how someone from an east african country could legally seek asylum. This Is that conversation in relation to the law amendment? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 6, 2023 Share Posted January 6, 2023 4 minutes ago, Seat68 said: is this the law Braverman stumbled over when asked how someone from an east african country could legally seek asylum. This Is that conversation in relation to the law amendment? It’s appalling “leadership”. Just own it if you’re going to deliberately block routes of asylum. Pathetic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 6, 2023 Author Moderator Share Posted January 6, 2023 21 minutes ago, Seat68 said: is this the law Braverman stumbled over when asked how someone from an east african country could legally seek asylum. This Is that conversation in relation to the law amendment? Yep. Not "her" law, I think it was Patel HS at the time, but her baby-eating, right wing nutty party all the same. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 6, 2023 Share Posted January 6, 2023 36 minutes ago, Seat68 said: is this the law Braverman stumbled over when asked how someone from an east african country could legally seek asylum. This Is that conversation in relation to the law amendment? The missing question in this was song the lines of “do you think everyone should have the right to apply for asylum without having to risk their lives?”. What would she say? It leads directly into their so called plans to stop it happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post fightoffyour Posted January 6, 2023 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted January 6, 2023 1 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts