It will a) backfire or b) not be enforceable. Like anything the HS has tried for the last 12 years.
Does that not run afoul of the UN, or have we left them now as well?
Edit: After fully reading the article.
> Ms Braverman will pledge to permit “immigration that grows our economy”
We had they (bi-lateral as well), but then her party shat that bed.
If there are no legal routes in, might as well take the chance, no
When the punishment is your existing situation, what’s the deterrent?
Blanket asylum bans are against international law.
I don’t have anything close to a law degree and I know this.
Why is Suella Braverman even in this position? She’s clearly a delusional shrivelled old cunt with no idea what she’s doing.
“She also wants to increase the number of French interceptions of migrants”
Shouldn’t she be standing for election in France then?
PS – good luck getting France or anyone else to take any of the people you refuse to consider giving asylum too.
This is red meat. Unless we are openly saying we will break international law, it doesn’t stand up.
Does she ever do anything other than make sound bites she can’t and won’t follow through with. I mean whether you*approve* of the ‘ends’ or not – she can’t come through with the ‘means’.
I think everyone wants to see the end of small boats crossing the English Channel. It’s unsafe and it’s illegal immigration.
However, work needs to be done to cut the root of the problem and not what it causes. This won’t involve headline grabbing policies, but it will involve outsmarting the criminal gangs involved in these operations and offering safer routes to asylum.
There’s the phrase — “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” — if people are paying stupid sums of money to these immoral people smugglers, then it’s the work of the government to outgun the work of these smugglers, again, by offering safer routes of asylum. Let the government become the people smugglers, in a way.
I mean surely this just isn’t going to be enforceable.
Firstly, entering the country for the purpose of claiming asylum is entirely legal. Regardless of the methods used to enter.
Secondly, this essentially breaches the international agreements we have signed up to. To enforce we would have to leave these agreements, lowering our international standing even further.
Thirdly, how is this to be enforced and will organisations like the coast guard who are obligated to rescue distressed vessels be criminalised by enabling illegal acts?
Remember, the government were very recently on the verge of a deal with the French to assist with channel crossings, but then Truss opened her big mouth about whether she thought Macron was a “friend or foe”, so the French understandably performed a “well fuck you then” moment and shit-canned the deal.
Legal immigration for skilled workers is good, illegal immigration for thousands of unskilled workers is really bad for our economy
I wonder how much money gets sent back to the multitude of countries that these illegals come from? Surely that has a massive effect on our economy as a whole
This is clearly a distraction piece to take the focus off the mini budget U turn and to try win back the vote of the xenophobes and racists that are backing parties like Reform UK
Just like the Rwanda plan, this is so obviously set up with the intention to fail, so the Tories have yet more ammunition in their culture wars. Because having failed with the economy, the NHS, crime, education and just about everything else, they’ve got nothing left except promoting imaginary fights and portraying themselves as the victim.
“See, we’re trying to get rid of the browns, but *they* (insert the EU, lefties, labour, foreigners or whoever else is appropriate at that moment in time) are stopping us! We’re on your side! Just give us more unaccountable power and we’ll be able to do whatever *you* want us to do!
Things to bear in mind: refugees are supposed to claim asylum in the first ‘safe’ country. There are very few places where the first ‘safe’ country you encounter is the UK, largely because we’re an island. Many refugees pass through France, which is, by most metrics ‘safe’, it’s just undesirable. The theory is that if we make ourselves undesirable, folk won’t wait till they get to Britain to claim asylum.
Human trafficking is no good very bad. Bad people, exploitative practices, big danger, money going to crime things. Most of the ways that people enter the country illegally are via paying someone to bring them in. Less human trafficking= a good thing. The policies are aiming to try to take the demand away from those who smuggle people into the UK.
It’s just that the main way to make people not want to come to Britain is to be evil to extremely vulnerable people, and I do not like that.
Maybe outsource smuggling to one of your own and watch it fail spectacularly as with everything else they do.
To achieve this they would need to leave the ECHR and probably tear up the Human Rights Act as well, pretty much cementing our role as an international pariah.
Knowing the hateful lunatics we have in charge right now they might even try it. They’re going to do irreparable damage to this country over the next 2 years.
In short, the UN charter states that refugees may enter a country without permission.
UK case law states that refugees may pass through other countries en route to the UK.
Presumably, case law can be overturned by act of parliament, meaning that it is possible to deny refugee status to people coming from the EU.
I don’t think this would have any effect on net migration, because acts of parliament do not affect supply and demand.
What will happen is an increase in people smuggling by criminal gangs, and stowaways on container ships.
Freeports would be convenient places to unload migrants and for private capital to take its cut.
There is a genuine problem of having to accept the asylum seekers that come by boat is it just encourages future boat migration
My comment got removed for calling someone a m—on
I work for the coastguard, this is going to be interesting.
I’m not even going to attempt to quote it. But under international laws/conventions we as an agency have a legal responsibility to initiate search and rescue operations at sea. It might be bloody obvious to my colleagues at Dover that someone is a migrant. But we have to treat them the same as if a British citizen has left Dover and has gotten in difficulty in the middle of the channel on their way home.
They’re not gonna stop us from sending lifeboats. The RNLI has a mission to save lives at sea. They don’t care why someone is in difficulty or even if they’ve put themselves in the situation, either through desperation, stupidity, lack of preparedness or for mental health reasons. They will go out and saves lives at sea. None of us want these people to drown. They’re just desperate to get away from a shitty situation and live somewhere they feel safe.
So what are they gonna do when Dover lifeboat carries on bringing 50 people back at a time? Once they’re in UK waters we pretty much have to take them to UK shores as that’s the nearest safe haven. Dover lifeboat won’t go all the way to Calais.
Pretty sure you have to be on UK soil to even apply for asylum… This makes no sense
Attorney General suggests breaking the law AGAIN!
Jesus fuckng wept
She’s trying to do something that the British people have been demanding for the last 20 year’s. Labour’s been ignoring this problem then whining about nobody’s voting for them you do make yourselves look rather childish.
The lovely Solicitors and Lawyers in Dover, now have definition to work with, eg “Who determines the Illegality?”
Australia do something similar, if you attempt to enter illegally you will never enter Australia. Advertise this fact in every country that illegals come from. This could work, but most likely it won’t and it will become just another “red meat” point to rally voters about
Playing devil’s advocate – given asylum seekers are supposed to find their nearest place of safety and apply there – one could challenge them and say that France was safe, and depending on the route they took, Italy and Greece were safe, or that Belgium Germany, Slovenia et al. are safe on a blanket basis
Here’s an even better idea, stop letting them in in the first place. Instead of escorting them to Dover tow them back to French waters.
There are still people crossing the channel in small boats? I thought Patel had solved this by sending everyone to Rawanda.
​
How strange this is still happening.
/s
So how exactly is an asylum seeker supposed to get to Britain legally? Most asylum seekers come from countries where citizens require a visa to enter UK, and they won’t be able to obtain a visa to claim asylum, and in many cases will not have documentation having fled war.
A truly evil policy.
Tanking in the polls? Leader inept? Fucked up the economy?
Go after asylum seekers! They’re just here to get put up in mansions, multiply, steal your job and sell drugs to yours kids! Vote tory
But what is illegal entry? Because as far as I am aware claiming asylum if you arrived via a boat isn’t illegal
Good luck with that breach of International Law…
###1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
> Article 31:
> 1. 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 in the sense of Article 1, 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.
In short, even if they _did_ cross illegally, they can’t be penalised for it unless their asylum claim has been evaluated. The convention spells this out explicitly…
> The 1951 Convention establishes a regime of rights and responsibilities for refugees. In most cases, only if an individual’s claim to refugee status is examined **before** he or she is affected by an exercise of State jurisdiction (for example, in regard to penalization for ‘illegal’ entry), can the State be sure that its international obligations
are met. Just as a decision on the merits of a claim to refugee status is generally the only way to ensure that the obligation of **non-refoulement** is observed, so also is such a decision essential to ensure that penalties are not imposed on refugees, contrary to Article 31 of the 1951 Convention.
[Emphasis from original]
Good decision.
I hope this finally ends this problem so I can feel safe in this country again.
But I thought that you couldn’t enter a country illegally if you were applying for asylum? Isn’t any crossing valid as long as you apply once you are there?
I think it’s a good change, but not because of racist reasons. Here’s why:
* I rather not have people or their kids risk their lives at sea, risking death to escape possible death or bad conditions in their country of origin is silly. Knowing that they might immediately get send back will stop them from doing this.
* This will stop “economic refugees”, the people that did not escape from a country of war or similar.
Again I’m not being racist and not a lawyer either. There’s many people who died trying to make the crossing at sea and a lot of human smugglers who are making money off of this. That definitely needs to stop.
What the UK should do is make it possible to apply for refuge from outside the UK. That way applicants can be filtered, if their reasons are valid just pick them up with a plane and keep them. Any applicants making the crossing anyway will get rejected and send back on the spot regardless if valid refugees or not.
Yeah…. that’s not how international law works.
Classic Tory policy, completely devoid of value, sense or logic.
That’s not how it works mate… arriving by boat doesn’t make an asylum seeker illegal
Stupid and illegal and designed to be struck down and create a fight with the courts. Woman should be fired into the sun
Asylum seekers are entering UK legally, that’s how the international law works. So, this doesn’t seem to change anything?
38 comments
It will a) backfire or b) not be enforceable. Like anything the HS has tried for the last 12 years.
Does that not run afoul of the UN, or have we left them now as well?
Edit: After fully reading the article.
> Ms Braverman will pledge to permit “immigration that grows our economy”
We had they (bi-lateral as well), but then her party shat that bed.
If there are no legal routes in, might as well take the chance, no
When the punishment is your existing situation, what’s the deterrent?
Blanket asylum bans are against international law.
I don’t have anything close to a law degree and I know this.
Why is Suella Braverman even in this position? She’s clearly a delusional shrivelled old cunt with no idea what she’s doing.
“She also wants to increase the number of French interceptions of migrants”
Shouldn’t she be standing for election in France then?
PS – good luck getting France or anyone else to take any of the people you refuse to consider giving asylum too.
This is red meat. Unless we are openly saying we will break international law, it doesn’t stand up.
Does she ever do anything other than make sound bites she can’t and won’t follow through with. I mean whether you*approve* of the ‘ends’ or not – she can’t come through with the ‘means’.
I think everyone wants to see the end of small boats crossing the English Channel. It’s unsafe and it’s illegal immigration.
However, work needs to be done to cut the root of the problem and not what it causes. This won’t involve headline grabbing policies, but it will involve outsmarting the criminal gangs involved in these operations and offering safer routes to asylum.
There’s the phrase — “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” — if people are paying stupid sums of money to these immoral people smugglers, then it’s the work of the government to outgun the work of these smugglers, again, by offering safer routes of asylum. Let the government become the people smugglers, in a way.
I mean surely this just isn’t going to be enforceable.
Firstly, entering the country for the purpose of claiming asylum is entirely legal. Regardless of the methods used to enter.
Secondly, this essentially breaches the international agreements we have signed up to. To enforce we would have to leave these agreements, lowering our international standing even further.
Thirdly, how is this to be enforced and will organisations like the coast guard who are obligated to rescue distressed vessels be criminalised by enabling illegal acts?
Remember, the government were very recently on the verge of a deal with the French to assist with channel crossings, but then Truss opened her big mouth about whether she thought Macron was a “friend or foe”, so the French understandably performed a “well fuck you then” moment and shit-canned the deal.
Legal immigration for skilled workers is good, illegal immigration for thousands of unskilled workers is really bad for our economy
I wonder how much money gets sent back to the multitude of countries that these illegals come from? Surely that has a massive effect on our economy as a whole
This is clearly a distraction piece to take the focus off the mini budget U turn and to try win back the vote of the xenophobes and racists that are backing parties like Reform UK
Just like the Rwanda plan, this is so obviously set up with the intention to fail, so the Tories have yet more ammunition in their culture wars. Because having failed with the economy, the NHS, crime, education and just about everything else, they’ve got nothing left except promoting imaginary fights and portraying themselves as the victim.
“See, we’re trying to get rid of the browns, but *they* (insert the EU, lefties, labour, foreigners or whoever else is appropriate at that moment in time) are stopping us! We’re on your side! Just give us more unaccountable power and we’ll be able to do whatever *you* want us to do!
Things to bear in mind: refugees are supposed to claim asylum in the first ‘safe’ country. There are very few places where the first ‘safe’ country you encounter is the UK, largely because we’re an island. Many refugees pass through France, which is, by most metrics ‘safe’, it’s just undesirable. The theory is that if we make ourselves undesirable, folk won’t wait till they get to Britain to claim asylum.
Human trafficking is no good very bad. Bad people, exploitative practices, big danger, money going to crime things. Most of the ways that people enter the country illegally are via paying someone to bring them in. Less human trafficking= a good thing. The policies are aiming to try to take the demand away from those who smuggle people into the UK.
It’s just that the main way to make people not want to come to Britain is to be evil to extremely vulnerable people, and I do not like that.
Maybe outsource smuggling to one of your own and watch it fail spectacularly as with everything else they do.
To achieve this they would need to leave the ECHR and probably tear up the Human Rights Act as well, pretty much cementing our role as an international pariah.
Knowing the hateful lunatics we have in charge right now they might even try it. They’re going to do irreparable damage to this country over the next 2 years.
Relevant full fact article.
https://fullfact.org/immigration/can-refugees-enter-uk-illegally/
In short, the UN charter states that refugees may enter a country without permission.
UK case law states that refugees may pass through other countries en route to the UK.
Presumably, case law can be overturned by act of parliament, meaning that it is possible to deny refugee status to people coming from the EU.
I don’t think this would have any effect on net migration, because acts of parliament do not affect supply and demand.
What will happen is an increase in people smuggling by criminal gangs, and stowaways on container ships.
Freeports would be convenient places to unload migrants and for private capital to take its cut.
There is a genuine problem of having to accept the asylum seekers that come by boat is it just encourages future boat migration
My comment got removed for calling someone a m—on
I work for the coastguard, this is going to be interesting.
I’m not even going to attempt to quote it. But under international laws/conventions we as an agency have a legal responsibility to initiate search and rescue operations at sea. It might be bloody obvious to my colleagues at Dover that someone is a migrant. But we have to treat them the same as if a British citizen has left Dover and has gotten in difficulty in the middle of the channel on their way home.
They’re not gonna stop us from sending lifeboats. The RNLI has a mission to save lives at sea. They don’t care why someone is in difficulty or even if they’ve put themselves in the situation, either through desperation, stupidity, lack of preparedness or for mental health reasons. They will go out and saves lives at sea. None of us want these people to drown. They’re just desperate to get away from a shitty situation and live somewhere they feel safe.
So what are they gonna do when Dover lifeboat carries on bringing 50 people back at a time? Once they’re in UK waters we pretty much have to take them to UK shores as that’s the nearest safe haven. Dover lifeboat won’t go all the way to Calais.
Pretty sure you have to be on UK soil to even apply for asylum… This makes no sense
Attorney General suggests breaking the law AGAIN!
Jesus fuckng wept
She’s trying to do something that the British people have been demanding for the last 20 year’s. Labour’s been ignoring this problem then whining about nobody’s voting for them you do make yourselves look rather childish.
The lovely Solicitors and Lawyers in Dover, now have definition to work with, eg “Who determines the Illegality?”
Australia do something similar, if you attempt to enter illegally you will never enter Australia. Advertise this fact in every country that illegals come from. This could work, but most likely it won’t and it will become just another “red meat” point to rally voters about
Playing devil’s advocate – given asylum seekers are supposed to find their nearest place of safety and apply there – one could challenge them and say that France was safe, and depending on the route they took, Italy and Greece were safe, or that Belgium Germany, Slovenia et al. are safe on a blanket basis
Here’s an even better idea, stop letting them in in the first place. Instead of escorting them to Dover tow them back to French waters.
There are still people crossing the channel in small boats? I thought Patel had solved this by sending everyone to Rawanda.
​
How strange this is still happening.
/s
So how exactly is an asylum seeker supposed to get to Britain legally? Most asylum seekers come from countries where citizens require a visa to enter UK, and they won’t be able to obtain a visa to claim asylum, and in many cases will not have documentation having fled war.
A truly evil policy.
Tanking in the polls? Leader inept? Fucked up the economy?
Go after asylum seekers! They’re just here to get put up in mansions, multiply, steal your job and sell drugs to yours kids! Vote tory
But what is illegal entry? Because as far as I am aware claiming asylum if you arrived via a boat isn’t illegal
Good luck with that breach of International Law…
###1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
> Article 31:
> 1. 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 in the sense of Article 1, 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.
In short, even if they _did_ cross illegally, they can’t be penalised for it unless their asylum claim has been evaluated. The convention spells this out explicitly…
> The 1951 Convention establishes a regime of rights and responsibilities for refugees. In most cases, only if an individual’s claim to refugee status is examined **before** he or she is affected by an exercise of State jurisdiction (for example, in regard to penalization for ‘illegal’ entry), can the State be sure that its international obligations
are met. Just as a decision on the merits of a claim to refugee status is generally the only way to ensure that the obligation of **non-refoulement** is observed, so also is such a decision essential to ensure that penalties are not imposed on refugees, contrary to Article 31 of the 1951 Convention.
[Emphasis from original]
Good decision.
I hope this finally ends this problem so I can feel safe in this country again.
But I thought that you couldn’t enter a country illegally if you were applying for asylum? Isn’t any crossing valid as long as you apply once you are there?
I think it’s a good change, but not because of racist reasons. Here’s why:
* I rather not have people or their kids risk their lives at sea, risking death to escape possible death or bad conditions in their country of origin is silly. Knowing that they might immediately get send back will stop them from doing this.
* This will stop “economic refugees”, the people that did not escape from a country of war or similar.
Again I’m not being racist and not a lawyer either. There’s many people who died trying to make the crossing at sea and a lot of human smugglers who are making money off of this. That definitely needs to stop.
What the UK should do is make it possible to apply for refuge from outside the UK. That way applicants can be filtered, if their reasons are valid just pick them up with a plane and keep them. Any applicants making the crossing anyway will get rejected and send back on the spot regardless if valid refugees or not.
Yeah…. that’s not how international law works.
Classic Tory policy, completely devoid of value, sense or logic.
That’s not how it works mate… arriving by boat doesn’t make an asylum seeker illegal
Stupid and illegal and designed to be struck down and create a fight with the courts. Woman should be fired into the sun
Asylum seekers are entering UK legally, that’s how the international law works. So, this doesn’t seem to change anything?