Migrants

[Undried Plum]

John,

I don't understand why you seem to be unable or unwilling to differentiate between legal migrants and criminal entrants.

There exists a system for lawful application for refugee status. The criminal entrants are deliberately breaking our immigration laws. That's why they should be deported.

We are causing them to take serious risks in these Z-boats because we are rewarding their criminality with safe refuge and a very nice lifestyle. We should be treating them as what they are: criminals.

This whole thing is going to keep on getting worse because we are doing nothing to put a stop to what is a vast criminal conspiracy. That's before we have to deal with a potential flood of Afghans who may have legitimate grounds for applying for refugee status. Then we'll have to face the consequences of millions of Pakistanis and Iranians who can very easily pose as Afghans because so many Afghans are ethnically and culturally indistinguishable from Dari and Pashtun speakers in Iran and Pakistan.

[John Hill]

John,

I don't understand why you seem to be unable or unwilling to differentiate between legal migrants and criminal entrants.

They are first and foremost migrants and only criminals because you say they are.

[Undried Plum]

No. They are criminals because they break the Law.

There exists a functioning system for putative political asylum seekers to apply for asylum. Any British diplomatic facility in any country in the world will accept applications for asylum and process the paperwork in due course. The process can even be initiated online.

The crooks are the ones who sidestep the lawful process and pay $5k or whatever to the human traffickers so they can sit on the tubes of a Z-boat from ffrance to Sussex and Kent.

More or less by self-selection, those criminals tend to be the ones who will break other laws in our country because, for them, crime pays.

[tango15]

What has always perplexed me about this whole business is where the money for these adventures comes from. In all of the countries from which these people set off, majority of the population are as poor as church mice (sorry Jim). So where do they find the up to $5000 required for the journey? Is this supplied through a pipeline (pun intended), from other Muslim states? They seem very reluctant to take any of their Muslim brothers, which is surely suspicious in itself.

[John Hill]

There exists a functioning system for putative political asylum seekers to apply for asylum. Any British diplomatic facility in any country in the world will accept applications for asylum and process the paperwork in due course. The process can even be initiated online.

The crooks are the ones who sidestep the lawful process and pay $5k or whatever to the human traffickers so they can sit on the tubes of a Z-boat from ffrance to Sussex and Kent.

More or less by self-selection, those criminals tend to be the ones who will break other laws in our country because, for them, crime pays.

According to you it would be cheaper and easier for them to go through 'channels' so how can you say that crime pays?

[John Hill]

No. They are criminals because they break the Law.

Someone arrives on the shores of the UK in a rubber boat which you say is illegal but I want to know what laws do they break?

[Undried Plum]

Self-evidently the crooks prefer a life of crime to living within the Law.

That's the way it is with crooks, y'know.

Very VERY few of the crooks are legitimate political asylum candidates. I'm sure the regard their $5k ticket on a Z-boat or in a lorry as a good investment.

If Fromage's guesstimate turns out to be right, and there are as many as 1,000 of the buggers coming ashore in a single day, and if the going rate really is as high as $5k, then that's Five Million bucks a day. A tidy sum.

[John Hill]

You keep calling these people 'crooks' and criminals but you do not know what laws they break?

[Undried Plum]

The Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service should be running a surveillance operation against the people traffickers. It surely isn't difficult to infiltrate the smuggling gangs. Identifying the supply chain of those hundreds of Zodiacs shouldn't be a particularly difficult challenge. Monitoring the cellphone traffic involved is a trivially simple task. Traffic analysis of those calls is something which both SS and SIS and GCHQ do all the time.

Why are the security services being held back? Where is the poxy navy in all this?

If a landlubber like Fromage can casually hire a boat and go and find these vessels then why can't our multi-billion Pound security and defence forces?

[Undried Plum]

The crooks break our immigrations laws, John.

That's why they are called illegal immigrants.

[John Hill]

The crooks break our immigrations laws, John.

So you keep saying but you are unable to tell me which law(s) they break by crossing the Channel in a rubber boat and coming ashore in the UK.

[John Hill]

Have you found that law yet? Never mind.

“This is a very bad and stupid and dangerous and criminal thing to do,” said Boris Johnson on Monday, in response to a spike in people crossing the Channel in small boats.

The prime minister, speaking hours after 20 Syrians arrived on Kent shores in a dinghy, proceeded to state that people arriving on boats were able to remain in the country despite “blatantly coming here illegally”.

His claims that the crossings are illegal, wrong and “stupid” have been met with broad condemnation from lawyers and charities. They say that not only are his remarks “just noise and rhetoric”, but that they also carry some considerable inaccuracies.

It isn’t ‘criminal’: it is legal to cross the Channel via unauthorised routes to claim asylum

There is no lawful restriction against people choosing the country in which they want to seek asylum, and the people crossing the Channel are not committing any unlawful act in doing so, according to Christopher Desira, human rights and immigration solicitor at Seraphus law firm.

The 1951 Refugee Convention, a legal document which defines the term “refugee” and outlines their rights, features no obligation for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach – so it is legitimate for someone to pass through France and then claim asylum in Britain.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 69046.html

[Undried Plum]

The immigration laws, John. Y'know, the laws which require permission to land in the UK.

Most countries have such laws. They are not unique to Britain.

BTW, a foot passenger ticket from Calais to Dover costs £22 and includes a wee meal. No need to pay $5,000 if you're legit.

Why do you think they pay $5k instead of £22?

[Undried Plum]

These people are not refugees and they know it.

If they thought they could wangle refugee status they'd do it in a heartbeat.

They know that they can't live within the law so they break the law. Very expensively. In some case, paying with their lives.

[John Hill]

Thank you for all the information regarding cross channel fares and I will keep that in mind should I ever venture beyond LAX again.


Now, about these people in rubber boats...like I have been saying, they are only criminals because you say they are. It isn’t ‘criminal’: it is legal to cross the Channel via unauthorised routes to claim asylum. Of course my information may be out of date and laws may have been changed in which case I am sure you can supply details.

[Boac]

John - the 1951 Convention was modified by the Dublin Convention to assert that within the EU:

"To avoid abuses, European law, the Dublin Regulation, requires that asylum seekers have their asylum claim registered in the first country they arrive in, and that the decision of the first EU country they apply in, is the final decision in all EU countries."

"The relevant conditions include that the person is shown to have previously entered that other EU country or made a claim there. This is supposed to share responsibility for asylum claims more equitably among EU countries and discourage people moving on from one EU country to another"

That is where the complications arise. If the dinghy folk rowed in from the USA or Africa there would be no problem. Since they 'row in' from France (the 'EU') there is. Thus they are technically 'illegal' being in breach of that convention.

[John Hill]

Is the UK still in the EU?

[Boac]

Not as far as I know (good to see NZ is keeping up with a fast-moving world...) , but the convention applies to the country of origin - the EU. I think there is a responsibility on all of us to recognise international laws?

[Undried Plum]

I ought to point out that by far the greatest numbers of illegals are overstayers who enter the country quasi-legally on a visitors visa and then melt away into the crowd when they should leave. The official estimate of such crooks is about three million, but some studies, using such methods as comparing sewage volumes against census returns, indicate that the true figure could be nearer ten million.

Failing to present a Landing Card is an offence, as is filing false information on that Landing Card. Those cards are not some kind of voluntary thing. They are mandatory (for some furriners).

The most common way for illegals to enter the UK is by falsifying their travel plans. I think it's six months that is the legal limit on a visitor's visa. After that, if they haven't either left or formalised their residency status, they are criminals and liable to forced deportation.

Here's a brief summary of the rules.

[John Hill]

Why would you be concerned about the responsibilities of countries of the EU? You should be concerned about your responsibilities to the people in the dinghy.

According to the information I have

The 1951 Refugee Convention, a legal document which defines the term “refugee” and outlines their rights, features no obligation for refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach – so it is legitimate for someone to pass through France and then claim asylum in Britain.

While we are on the subject of responsibilities the UK and other countries owe a debt to the survivors of their colonial, imperial and commercial plunderings. So please keep the welcome mat out and a lamp by the door for a few migrants from Afghanistan.