Opportunity Missed?

[Expat.]

On 4/19/2022 at 11:57 PM, Josem said:

I'm sure that each of your statements here are literally true, but combined, people might be misled into thinking inaccurately.

Article 2 of the the refugee convention requires that refugees comply with the laws and regulations of the countries that they are in. If, as you say*, "the EU has a regulation that refugee processing take place in the first EU nation the refugee arrives in," then any refugee is required to comply with that regulation.

Putting that all together, if you are correct in your interpretation of EU law, then unless a refugee has somehow traversed to the UK without transiting through the EU, they are obligated to apply as a refugee in the EU.

*I defer to your expertise here, I'm not familiar with EU laws here

We're not in the EU anymore. There's been this big Brexit thing...

[Expat.]

On 4/20/2022 at 10:58 AM, Eris said:

Unlawful entry into a country is invasion and a criminal act.

I'm going to assume you mean the people you see on the news being picked up from rubber boats in the channel and landed on the south coast are invading, and that is a criminal act, rather than Russia invading Ukraine which is clearly an illegal act.

It's not illegal to arrive in this or any other country. Its not even illegal to try and get here in a rubber boat. It's stupid and desperate but it isn't illegal. You can cross the channel in a tin bath if you want to.

What is illegal is to try and avoid this, or any other country's, border controls. It's illegal to pitch up in the middle of the night hiding in the back of a lorry etc and set to work in your Uncles business and hide from the authorities. That makes you an illegal immigrant.

You're supposed to present yourself to the country's border controls and ask for asylum. Most of us arrive in a foreign country having already satisfied the border control by getting a visa or whatever paper work is demanded sorted out before we set off. The laws we signed up for, indeed we were instrumental in getting set up, recognise that refugees have bugger all chance of doing that and they are permitted to arrive by 'irregular means'. 

[Yibble]

14 hours ago, Expat. said:

You're supposed to present yourself to the country's border controls and ask for asylum. Most of us arrive in a foreign country having already satisfied the border control by getting a visa or whatever paper work is demanded sorted out before we set off. The laws we signed up for, indeed we were instrumental in getting set up, recognise that refugees have bugger all chance of doing that and they are permitted to arrive by 'irregular means'. 

Indeed. The UN Convention rightly recognises that "subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules. Prohibited penalties might include being charged with immigration or criminal offences relating to the seeking of asylum, or being arbitrarily detained purely on the basis of seeking asylum."

However the "subject to specific exemptions" bit is really important here. In particular the provision that: "The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened . . . . . , enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence." (my emphasis).

The cross-channel boat people are clearly not coming directly from a territory they need to seek refuge from (if they need to seek refuge at all) and therefore are not entitled to the 'irregular means' protection. I suspect there are good arguments that the same test may also bring into question their very status as refugees, though I have never read a considered analysis of the legal position on that (perhaps JW may have insight there). 

So given that the irregular cross channel migrants:

• don't have any exemption from breach of immigration rules;
• create significant public order issues (including risk of death, supporting organised crime and unduly burdening emergency services), and
• may not be refugees at all.

it seems their "absolute rights" under the Convention may not be as some represent.

I'd like to see refugees well treated and agree many will have a lot to offer the UK / British Isles. However tolerating / allowing / encouraging what's currently going on is not right. I'm not sure if the proposed Rwanda solution is right or not, but have any better realistic alternatives been proposed? 

[Ringy Rose]

6 minutes ago, Yibble said:

The cross-channel boat people are clearly not coming directly from a territory they need to seek refuge from

The biggest origins for asylum seekers to the UK are Syria, Sudan, Eritrea, Iran and Iraq. 70% are from Syria.

Travelling "directly" does not mean they cannot pass through other territories on their way. It means they cannot settle somewhere then decide to move on.

9 minutes ago, Yibble said:

However tolerating / allowing / encouraging what's currently going on is not right.

The solution, though, is to deal with the problems at source. Asylum seekers are coming from some of the world's scariest countries; Syria is Syria, but Sudan and Eritrea are just as bad.

Sadly, though, dealing with these countries at source is difficult and dangerous. There's no easy answer; the Syrian, Iranian and Eritrean leaders aren't going to stop torturing their citizens any time soon.

It's just a good job for Priti Patel that we didn't take the same attitude to people fleeing murderous tyrants back in the 70s when her parents rocked up here after they fled Idi Amin's Uganda.

[Gladys]

6 hours ago, Ringy Rose said:

 

It's just a good job for Priti Patel that we didn't take the same attitude to people fleeing murderous tyrants back in the 70s when her parents rocked up here after they fled Idi Amin's Uganda.

Quite, except Wiki says they left Uganda in the 60s. 

Edited April 22, 2022 by Gladys

[The Voice of Reason]

3 hours ago, Gladys said:

Quite, except Wiki says they left Uganda in the 60s. 

My recollection is that Ugandan refugees (or whatever their status was ) came to the UK in the 70’s

Does the decade really matter?

The UK was quite rightly welcoming them 

[Gladys]

18 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

My recollection is that Ugandan refugees (or whatever their status was ) came to the UK in the 70’s

Does the decade really matter?

The UK was quite rightly welcoming them 

The decade matters to give context to the reasons for leaving Uganda.  If it was under lovely Idi that is one thing, if it was a free choice, that is another.  The point is that PP's  family did not flee Uganda under Idi Amin's reign, therefore were not refugees as was quoted.  However, very many did and were rightly given refuge in the UK.  

The big change, as I remember, was in the 80s when British passport holders were not given automatic rights of entry and abode. I think many lost their rights to a British passport. 

To add: They were not refugees as they held British passports anyway. 

Edited April 22, 2022 by Gladys

[Ghost Ship]

46 minutes ago, Gladys said:

The decade matters to give context to the reasons for leaving Uganda.  If it was under lovely Idi that is one thing, if it was a free choice, that is another.  The point is that PP's  family did not flee Uganda under Idi Amin's reign, therefore were not refugees as was quoted.  However, very many did and were rightly given refuge in the UK.  

The big change, as I remember, was in the 80s when British passport holders were not given automatic rights of entry and abode. I think many lost their rights to a British passport. 

To add: They were not refugees as they held British passports anyway. 

Yes.  I'm often surprised that so many people don't know - or have forgotten - that many if not most of the Ugandan Asians who came to the UK after being expelled by Amin in 1972 held what was in effect UK/GB* citizenship and had UK/GB "colonial" passports - meaning that the UK had no real choice but to accept them.  (Maybe I have more personal knowledge of this than many other people as the city I went to university in became a destination for a large number of those expelled and many of them - or their children - were contemporaries of mine).

I don't know when Priti Patel's parents came to the UK, but if Wiki is right and it was the 1960s, it demonstrates that when trying to "make a point" about the refugee status of her parents, people need to be wary of making lazy (or self-confirming) assumptions...

 

* Or whatever was the correct terminology 50 years ago.

Edited April 22, 2022 by Ghost Ship

[Yibble]

21 minutes ago, Ghost Ship said:

it demonstrates that when trying to "make a point" about the refugee status of her parents, people need to be wary of making lazy (or self-confirming) assumptions...

👍   though I think you're being a bit generous with "lazy". 

Their comments / false equivalencies are character revealing though, in a 'mask slips' sort of way. 

[Eris]

The UK is beyond full.  The UK can not afford these scroungers.

[Expat.]

21 minutes ago, Eris said:

The UK is beyond full.  The UK can not afford these scroungers.

The UK isn't beyond full. It's not a small overcrowded island. The UK is the largest island in Europe, the eighth largest island and the thirteenth largest land mass on the planet. If anything, its a large island. If you list the 194 recognised countries in the world in terms of descending population density the UK comes in somewhere in the early thirties. Clearly parts of it are heaving, especially London, but even London is no where near as crowded as Singapore or Hong Kong or South Korea.

Neither is it true to say that the UK is disappearing under a carpet of concrete. There's more land revealed when the tide goes out around its coast than has been built on. There's a serious problem with the availability of housing but we could build a lot more before we even noticed it.

There's no settled view on the fiscal impact of immigrants, you can take your pick of anywhere between +1% and -1% of GDP. 

Of the 20+% of immigrants who claim benefits of any sort, the vast majority claim in work benefits such as tax credits.

[TheTeapot]