Migrants

[John Hill]

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.

Well that is interesting but of course those people are not the rubber boat sailors you have been carping about are they?

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).

But not asylum seekers.

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.

So why get so het up about rubber boats?

I doubt I will ever visit the UK again so those rules are no use to me and neither are they applicable to the rubber boat chaps.

[Undried Plum]

Sadly, you seem to have missed the point that the Law applies to criminals just as much as it does to law-abiding folks like you and I.

They are not asylum seekers!

Asylum seekers put it an application for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in which there is a British Embassy or Consular office. They have no need to break the law as the Law is on their side.

It's the chancers, the economic migrants, who break the law of this country. They are the criminals.

[Rwy in Sight]

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

A bit late to the show but here is my take:
How about not entering from an authorised port of entry? Let alone ( I know difficult to prove) but travelling without the required documents can be a second illegal act.

[John Hill]

The point that is being studiously ignored is that it is not a crime to cross the Channel in a rubber boat and land in the UK.

[Boac]

Back to illegal entry again (or was that about sheep?)

[Undried Plum]

The point that is being studiously ignored is that it is not a crime to cross the Channel in a rubber boat and land in the UK.

It bloody well is illegal if the intent is to circumvent normal immigration procedures!

The crooks have a choice of paying a £22 fare on a ferry or circumventing the Law by paying thousands of Dollars/Euros to the criminal gangs who operate the people-smuggling racket.

Why do you think they don't just pay the 22 quid?

Smuggling is profitable because it involves breaking the Law.

[John Hill]

It is still not a crime to cross the Channel in a rubber boat and land in the UK.

[Rwy in Sight]

What about the port of entry? Shouldn't people use a port of entry to enter the country? Much like you can't land in an airfield in the middle of nowhere when flying in from France or Eire?

[Boac]

JH can.

[Undried Plum]

Yes. You must land at a recognised port or airport, or else make a prior declaration to Border Force or the local police.

[John Hill]

You chaps can just argue among yourselves until you decide what it is to be debated, except of course the legality of arriving on the shores of the UK in a rubber boat.

[ExSp33db1rd]

But having landed, it is then an offence to proceed further, and indeed continue to live in the Country without completing the required.procedures. Which they do. QED

Remember the joke about H.M. Customs coming across a bunch of UK Old Age Pensioners drifting in the Channel, and asked what they thought they were doing ? We're hoping to be rescued as immigrants, and receive all the benefits, they replied.

[bob2s]

John,a bit of light reading for you re the legality of arriving on shore without permission,perhaps this will let you see the error of your way.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 060412.pdf

[Undried Plum]

France has demanded a "new migratory deal" with Britain to allow the EU to send asylum seekers over the Channel to the UK.

Clement Beaune, the country's Europe minister, sparked fury among Tory MPs as he declared that Britain should take a share of the migrants crowding into northern France and spurring a record number of Channel crossings.

"We must, after Brexit, have a new migratory deal no doubt between the EU and Britain so that we can expel, or direct a certain number of migrants to the UK so they can request asylum," Mr Beaune told CNews.

"It's [Britain's] responsibility," he added, accusing the UK of being a soft touch on illegal immigration. "We have seen sometimes that it is the attractiveness of Britain's asylum system that is in question.

"We are the ones who have paid a high price over the past 10 years – we see it in Calais regarding organisation, humanitarian aid and police checks."

[John Hill]

There seem to be a few changes afoot in the rules etc relating to asylum seekers and the UK, a definite sniff of Trumpish facism is sneaking in but maybe some folks here will like that.

[John Hill]

John,a bit of light reading for you re the legality of arriving on shore without permission,perhaps this will let you see the error of your way.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 060412.pdf

I could not see the bit about asylum seekers in rubber boats.

[Undried Plum]

It's not the rubberiness of the boats that's illegal, John.

It's entering the UK without Leave that's illegal, See Section 24(1) (a) of the Immigration Act.

Section 26(1) (e) Offence of failing to complete a landing card in accordance with an order made under Schedule 2, without reasonable excuse.

Offences by persons connected with ships or aircraft or with ports Section 27(a)(i) Offence of knowingly permitting a person to disembark in the United Kingdom when required under
Schedule 2 or 3 to prevent it. Offence of failing to take steps required to be taken under Schedule 2 in connection with the disembarkation or examination of passengers or the furnishing of crew or passenger lists, without reasonable excuse.

The list of illegalities goes on, John, but you'd need to read the Law with an open mind, not a closed one, in order to recognise the criminality of these crooks.

The crooks in the rubber boats are neither better nor worse than the crooks who smuggle themselves into the UK illegally in lorries or the crooks who knowingly overstay a six month visa or the crooks who obtain one by deception. They're just crooks. That's all.

Their self-evident intent to disregard our laws should automatically disqualify them from consideration for a visa. That's why the buggers should be ejected from UK waters at the UK/ffrench median line or the 12 mile limit.

We should take a hard line, as the Strines did. By showing that they weren't pissing about, the Strines pretty much dried up the flow of 'boat people' at source by making the game not worth its candle. Harsh, but fair.

Asylum seekers are a whole different kettle of fish. They can apply online or in person for a special visa before embarking on a dangerous journey such as in an airless container or a reefer or a Zodiac. ffrance has numerous UK consular facilities, all of which can provide some level of assistance to bona fide political/ethnic/woofter/whatever refugees. So do the several other countries through which these bastards have transited before the buggers get to the ffrench coast.

[Boac]

A rubber fetish as well as sheep?

[John Hill]

As I wrote a couple of post back, 'there are changes afoot in the rules etc relating to asylum seekers and the UK, a definite sniff of Trumpish facism is sneaking in but maybe some folks here will like that'.

[Undried Plum]

I hope the rule changes allow us to follow the Strine lead and actually discourage the criminal entrants from committing their crimes.

It'll save lives in the long run. They won't be so keen to cram into airless containers or refrigerated lorries or clamber aboard dinghies in winter gales.