Keir Starmer

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I wouldn't be swayed either way at present.
Historically it was 200, but given the talk and agreements, that knowledge will have impacts on future numbers. The shear knowledge of the decision will have an impact on decisions as to the why people arrive illegally, it may deter people, it may have no impact or it could encourage more to get there ASAP.
Only on observation of change now, can we start to determine within a statistical confidence interval as to which way it's going to go.
Anything else is pure finger in the air guesswork, and yes, one thing I do agree on, is that mass media love guessing without evidence, but state it in such a way as to imply they know something we don't, which generally results in total bulls carp...

Correction.
Arriving to claim asylum, no matter by what means, is not illegal.
Your mention of "illegally" - Is this a sign of a personal bias, I wonder?

 

[Sachakins]

Correction.
Arriving to claim asylum, no matter by what means, is not illegal.
Your mention of "illegally" - Is this a sign of a personal bias, I wonder?

The arrival is illegal, until such time as asylum is requested.
Those that arrive and don't claim asylum remain illegal.
Claiming asylum does not make it legal entry. Entry is still illegal.
Once asylum is granted then it all changes ,that I agree.

No it's not personal bias, it's an understanding of the process and it's stages from travelling without permission to a country landing without permission in a country.
Once contact with recognised government authority and then claiming asylum changes their status, up till then they are illegal.

 

[selectortone]

I agree to differ, based on when it was signed was the GFA inception.

Yes there us all sorts of historical implications, but the GFA only came into force in 1998, not before, even if the reasons prior go back centuries, does imply the GFA is that old.

That flies in the face of literally centuries of the most violent conflict and injustice, as has been said most eloquently above. You only need to spend a few weeks in Ireland with Irish people to understand that. It really is a most fragile peace. It's ingrained into the culture and it will take generations for attitudes to change.

 

[RobinBHM]

The arrival is illegal, until such time as asylum is requested.
Those that arrive and don't claim asylum remain illegal.
Claiming asylum does not make it legal entry. Entry is still illegal.
Once asylum is granted then it all changes ,that I agree.

I thought we had innocent until proven guilty

but saying "the arrival is illegal until such time as asylum is requested" is guilty until proven innocent

framing them as illegals is deliberate inflammatory language designed to invoke negativity.

the reality is these people cross in small boats with the express purpose of claiming asylum, the refugee convention states anybody can cross a boder by any means to claim asylum.

being an Asylum Seeker is a legal status, there is nothing illegal about the person at that stage...their method of entry cant be considered illegal because asylum seekers are never arrested

 

[RobinBHM]

to return to Keir Starmer / Labour government...........this constant bickering about how theyve done this, how he had a pair of free glasses or Taylor Swift had a police escort is all just trivial news cycle stuff

The stone cold reality is, it will take at least a couple of years before anybody can judge how Labour are doing....and TBH we really need the full term to judge

In fact to sort out the structural failings of this country, like wealth inequality, low productivity, public services in a state of collapse, poorly skilled workers and a government which isnt drowning in debt............is going to take 10 to 15 years.


But unless the media is regulated and our weak political system is changed, this country will carry on being **** because the public will carry on voting against their best interests.

 

[Jameshow]

I thought we had innocent until proven guilty

but saying "the arrival is illegal until such time as asylum is requested" is guilty until proven innocent

framing them as illegals is deliberate inflammatory language designed to invoke negativity.

the reality is these people cross in small boats with the express purpose of claiming asylum, the refugee convention states anybody can cross a boder by any means to claim asylum.

being an Asylum Seeker is a legal status, there is nothing illegal about the person at that stage...their method of entry cant be considered illegal because asylum seekers are never arrested

Or do ?? % of them run ashore and disappear into the night and the black economy..
They are illegal immigrants seeking economic betterment.

 

[RobinBHM]

Or do ?? % of them run ashore and disappear into the night and the black economy.

93% claim asylum according to home office figures

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac....ving in,around three quarters were successful.

They are illegal immigrants seeking economic betterment.

are you referring to the potential 7% (see above)

or are you conflating that phrase to stereotype all small boat arrivals?

 

[Spectric]

If it was legal to turn up in a country without any paperwork then why do we have "borders" or passports ? This is no different to entering someones house by walking in via an open backdoor rather than knocking on the front door.

 

[paulrbarnard]

I thought we had innocent until proven guilty

but saying "the arrival is illegal until such time as asylum is requested" is guilty until proven innocent

framing them as illegals is deliberate inflammatory language designed to invoke negativity.

the reality is these people cross in small boats with the express purpose of claiming asylum, the refugee convention states anybody can cross a boder by any means to claim asylum.

being an Asylum Seeker is a legal status, there is nothing illegal about the person at that stage...their method of entry cant be considered illegal because asylum seekers are never arrested

How about walking into a super market picking up an apple and eating it. You have consumed the property of the supermarket. Is that illegal until you pay for it on the way out or only if you fail to pay for it at all?

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Correction.
Arriving to claim asylum, no matter by what means, is not illegal.
Your mention of "illegally" - Is this a sign of a personal bias, I wonder?

Wrong - Under section 24 (B1) of the Immigration Act 1971, a person who a) requires leave to enter the United Kingdom and, b) knowingly enters the UK without such leave, commits an offence.

Only when you have arrive and claimed asylum do a different set of rules kick in.

 

[RobinBHM]

If it was legal to turn up in a country without any paperwork then why do we have "borders" or passports ? This is no different to entering someones house by walking in via an open backdoor rather than knocking on the front door.

you have missed out the crucial phrase: asylum seeker

 

[paulrbarnard]

93% claim asylum according to home office figures

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/people-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/#:~:text=93% of people arriving in,around three quarters were successful.


are you referring to the potential 7% (see above)

or are you conflating that phrase to stereotype all small boat arrivals?

In 2023 33% of asylum requests were refused. On appeal about a ⅓ of refusals were then granted. That left about 10000 people with refused asylum in the country. Only 4000 of those were subsequently arrested. ~4000 were eventually deported. That means that between 2 and 6000 people arriving in 2023 are still in the U.K. illegally. Yes by that stage it is definitely illegally.

 

[RobinBHM]

Only when you have arrive and claimed asylum do a different set of rules kick in.

they claim asylum when they arrive



if it makes you happy you can call them illegal for the 5 minutes it takes to get out of the boat and walk to shore and meet the border force agent

although even during that time, they still have the right to cross a border by any means to claim asylum, so they are complying with international law

We all know why the Conservative party and the Daily mail want to ramp up the word "illegal" ............its to incite negativity against them

 

[paulrbarnard]

you have missed out the crucial phrase: asylum seeker

They are not an asylum seeker until they have requested asylum.
Until they have done that you have no idea if their intent is to do so or to continue with an illegal entry

 

[RobinBHM]

In 2023 33% of asylum requests were refused. On appeal about a ⅓ of refusals were then granted. That left about 10000 people with refused asylum in the country. Only 4000 of those were subsequently arrested. ~4000 were eventually deported. That means that between 2 and 6000 people arriving in 2023 are still in the U.K. illegally. Yes by that stage it is definitely illegally.

having your application refused doesnt make you illegal

may I ask why you are rather keen for them to be called "illegal"?

It isn't illegal to seek asylum, because seeking asylum is a legal process. It also isn't illegal to be refused asylum – it just means you haven't been able to meet the very strict criteria to prove your need for protection as a refugee.

https://www.google.com/search?q=if+...3NzcwajFqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[RobinBHM]

They are not an asylum seeker until they have requested asylum.
Until they have done that you have no idea if their intent is to do so or to continue with an illegal entry

So why arent they arrested as they get off the boat?

A =because the authorities need to establish whether they want to apply for asylum

you are making a non argument

 

[paulrbarnard]

having your application refused doesnt make you illegal

may I ask why you are rather keen for them to be called "illegal"?

It isn't illegal to seek asylum, because seeking asylum is a legal process. It also isn't illegal to be refused asylum – it just means you haven't been able to meet the very strict criteria to prove your need for protection as a refugee.

https://www.google.com/search?q=if+...3NzcwajFqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

If you read the whole post you would see that I don’t refer to them as illegal at any point. I point out that after they have been refused asylum and failed appeal and not been removed or have not left the country they are illegally residing in the country. Frankly it is you who seems to have the aversion to the word illegal more than ‘Conservatives’ wanting to use it.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

That flies in the face of literally centuries of the most violent conflict and injustice, as has been said most eloquently above. You only need to spend a few weeks in Ireland with Irish people to understand that. It really is a most fragile peace. It's ingrained into the culture and it will take generations for attitudes to change.

It is a testament to the stupidity of human beings that having signed an agreement which seeks to resolve a longstanding dispute, they are incapable of looking forward and making it work.

Not just NI, but also evident at the moment in the middle east. Cooperation and dialogue is likely to benefit both parties. Usually attributed to Churchill - "jaw jaw is better than war war".

 

[paulrbarnard]

So why arent they arrested as they get off the boat?

A =because the authorities need to establish whether they want to apply for asylum

you are making a non argument

They do try to arrest the ones who run…. Your rose tinted glasses are effecting your vision.

 

[RobinBHM]

I point out that after they have been refused asylum and failed appeal and not been removed or have not left the country they are illegally residing in the country.

I have already pointed out that is not the case

It isn't illegal to seek asylum, because seeking asylum is a legal process. It also isn't illegal to be refused asylum – it just means you haven't been able to meet the very strict criteria to prove your need for protection as a refugee.


https://www.google.com/search?q=if+...3NzcwajFqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8