THE FOURTH OF JULY

[Jacob]

There may be a subtle semantic distinction between "entry" and "immigration" - but it is an offence to knowingly arriving to the UK without entry clearance

Illegal entry and related offences​

Section 24 of the 1971 Act contained provisions for illegal entry offences that were summary only. Most of these offences remain on the statute book, but section 24 has been amended by the Nationality and Borders Act (NABA)

Section 24(D1) Arriving without entry clearance​

A person who is a non-British/Irish national or who does not have a right of abode, will normally require entry clearance (visa) prior to arriving in the UK. The provision now makes it an immigration offence knowingly to arrive in the UK where entry clearance is required under immigration rules. The evidence will need to address that no valid entry clearance was issued by the Secretary of State. It is for the defence to prove that the person had valid entry clearance.

The legalities seems fairly clear to me - although any sanctions to be applied should rightly depend on the merits of any asylum claim.

https://www.refugee-action.org.uk/facts-about-asylum/

 

[RobinBHM]

but it is an offence to knowingly arriving to the UK without entry clearance

The U.K. is a signatory to the refugee convention which states a person can arrive in a country by any means to claim asylum.


So a person arriving here with the intention of claim asylum is not committing an offence**



* yes I know Tory illegal migration act changes that in theory

 

[Spectric]

I’m really hoping this is satirical

So what don't you like about the contract knowing it is nothing more than ideas for change ? We cannot continue down this path of trying to please everyone whilst barely treading water and not facing reality. We are in a really big mess which is only getting worse and yet we are not accepting that it is now time for the stick and not the apple because our delicate gentle approach to the issues is not working and everything needs a big dose of tough love. This means taking control of our borders and stopping the invasion, shifting the tax burden up the ladder so those in most need get some relief whilst those earning the average annual wage in a week pay more, retrain our police to become policemen and not social workers whilst reducing paperwork and re-structure the NHS to encompass everything from birth to death which includes social care that would help bed blocking and give the staff a better place to work in with all focus on patient care and not targets.

This is not going to happen in a short time frame but needs to be planed over a decade as there is not the money short term until we get the national debt down and of course the conservatives have not even thought about making a proper start even though they were in a position to do so, Labour will float around nit picking whilst argueing amongst themselves as the Labour part will cause friction with the conservative part and no other party under the FPTP system will get a look in so no change and we just stumble on like always. Of course the other really big problem that is not going away but will just get kicked down the road is the impact of climate change, addressing this is also going to need a strong economy but we don't have time on our side so really we are looking at a very complex equation that our politicians do not want to solve because they know they cannot.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Backhanded, but telling. One thing fascists admire is other fascists. The desire for extreme authoritarian control over the population is highly attractive to that mindset.

Both far left and far right are characterised by authoritarian dogma forcing a polarised view on all.

UK political success has largely been found in the centre ground - probably why in terms of likely outcomes there is little to choose between a Labour and Tory government.

Painting those slightly to the right of centre "far right" is to align them with the worst excesses of Hitler, Franco, Mussolini. Those slightly left of centre do not warrant association with the extremes of Stalin, Mao, or even those whose names are often used as insults - Marx. Lenin, Trotsky.

That Farage has garnered such support (not mine!) is a reflection of:

• his presentational skills which far exceed those of Starmer and Sunak
• his willingness to risk opprobrium by being explicit and direct
• the superficial attractiveness of many policies to an often ill educated public
• the utterly uninspiring "sunlit uplands" that the political establishment promote

As a political threat he will not be neutered by rational argument on normal political lines - that is what the Remainers did with Brexit facing a similarly talented and equally flawed Boris. That his sums don't add up, and policies questionable will not deter his supporters.

To use a footballing expression - the best approach may be to "play the man, not the ball".

 

[Spectric]

The U.K. is a signatory to the refugee convention which states a person can arrive in a country by any means to claim asylum.

I always thought that it was the first safe country that they arrived in and that crossing continents was not the idea.

 

[Jacob]

......

UK political success has largely been found in the centre ground -

Not true at all. Political success has been the result of years of active pressure from various sources, against "the ruling class". It was fought for every step of the way.
Magna Carta, Peasants revolt, Diggers, Levellers, Luddites, Chartists, Tolpuddle martyrs, Execution of Charles 1, Captain Swing, Peterloo Massacre, general strikes......etc etc?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_movement.

...

That Farage has garnered such support (not mine!) is a reflection of:

“The key to success is sincerity. If you can fake that you've got it made.”
Although he hasn't got it made. His total vote in all his seven general elections was less than Diane Abbots majority alone in 2017

 

[Amateur]

Groundhog Day springs to mind for most of the folk on here.
We have heard it all before.
Politicians today are fearful of making decisions.
In my humble opinion, from what has been written and reported in the media there is an undercurrent of officials, from MPs, money men and civil servants that bring actions to a grinding halt just because they either don't like what it entails or support a different type of logic to solve a problem or disrupt things.
Goverments are fragmented within.
When this happens change can't happen.

 

[RobinBHM]

We are in a really big mess which is only getting worse

I fully agree.

But why are we in a big mess?

The answer is because the last 40 years has seen a steady transfer of assets from governments and ordinary working people to the wealthy.

The years of austerity from 2010 saw a total stagnation of wages for ordinary people but a big rise in the income, assets and wealth of the top few %.


What does Reform / Farage / Tice / Habib actually represent?

A = libertarian free markets, a deregulated U.K.

Spectric: Reform want to accelerate the fundamental structural problems that exist in this country…..they would make things far worse. Nigel Farage is using immigration as a smokescreen, he wants the ordinary working man to think his life is bad because of foreigners, whereas his life is actually bad because of free market ideology.

 

[Amateur]

In any case they are already incorporated into UK law.
It it very weird how so many want to lose their human rights or remove regulations which preserve the quality of their lives on so many levels. Craziest of all was giving up the freedom of movement allowed by the EU.

We are already losing our quality of life regardless.
Unless you are looking at the situation through rose tinted glasses.

 

[RobinBHM]

I always thought that it was the first safe country that they arrived in and that crossing continents was not the idea.

If you think about that, it wouldn’t make sense….and no it’s not a refugee convention rule.

What happens is that the majority of people who are displaced due escaping war or persecution do stay in a neighbouring country, Turkey has 4m refugees, Jordan has 2m refugees etc.

But if every single refugee stayed in a neighbouring country, the region would collapse. So a % of displaced people travel further away and they disperse over a wide area.


Or let’s put it another way, if U.K. was the nearest safe country, would you think it fair if every single person fled to the U.K. and wasn’t allowed anywhere else?

 

[Jacob]

We are already losing our quality of life regardless.

Certainly so when you look at the details - brexit being top of the charts for reducing quality of life, followed by neo liberal economic dogma which has ravaged our public services.

Unless you are looking at the situation through rose tinted glasses.

Cheer up it's not all bad news!

 

[RobinBHM]

Groundhog Day springs to mind for most of the folk on here.
We have heard it all before.
Politicians today are fearful of making decisions.
In my humble opinion, from what has been written and reported in the media there is an undercurrent of officials, from MPs, money men and civil servants that bring actions to a grinding halt just because they either don't like what it entails or support a different type of logic to solve a problem or disrupt things.
Goverments are fragmented within.
When this happens change can't happen.

I would say I disagree.

Politicians aren’t fearful of making decisions……we’ve had 40+ years of politicians making decisions based on the wealthy that donate or lobby govts in exchange for policy influence.

For example: why don’t the current govt sort out the housing crisis

A = because the 6 big house builders donate to the party.

For example: why don’t the current govt sort out the NHS

A = because the current govt is full of MPs with connections to private healthcare.


Politicians aren’t fearful of making decisions, they make plenty of them….but those decisions are in the vested interests of a small number of people, not the ordinary man

 

[Amateur]

This is a popular piece of absolute nonsense.
Everybody arrives in the UK "without permission" and has to go through a verification process on arrival. You have obviously never travelled abroad and had to come back through passport control.
Even if you land on a beach from a dinghy there will be a reception committee of one sort or another.
The chances of anybody making it without detection is extremely low, in fact the opposite is often the case whereby people who are entitled to live here are let down by bureaucracy and deported, or not allowed back in. Windrush etc.

The difference being by coming through an airport passport control you generally have a passport and can be refused entry and shipped straight back.

When they come by dinghies I dont recall many of the thousands landing on a beach going anywhere?

 

[Amateur]

The U.K. is a signatory to the refugee convention which states a person can arrive in a country by any means to claim asylum.


So a person arriving here with the intention of claim asylum is not committing an offence**



* yes I know Tory illegal migration act changes that in theory

If you can prove you have come from a country that isnt safe to live in.
But most of them don't come from those type of countries.
And most don't have passports to confirm that.......

 

[Jake]

I always thought that it was the first safe country that they arrived in and that crossing continents was not the idea.

That's because we were in the EU for so long you got used to that concept and that was the internal EU rule (I think they've changed it now, we would no doubt have vetoed any change to that if we were still in).

 

[Jake]

If you can prove you have come from a country that isnt safe to live in.
But most of them don't come from those type of countries.
And most don't have passports to confirm that.......

Over 60% of asylum applications are successful so while there is a substantial proportion for which that is true, it's a minority and most do.

 

[Adam W.]

I always thought that it was the first safe country that they arrived in and that crossing continents was not the idea.

The glorious Brexit put paid to that one.

Did you vote for it?

If you did, it's your fault entirely.

HTH.

 

[sploo]

A bit of a "sweeping generalisation" here. I believe that arch fascist, Hitler detested Franco, and though Mussolini was a buffoon.

Personally yes; I can quite understand that unpleasant people tend to dislike others. I was more meaning admiration of authoritarian control. E.g. Farage fellating Putin.

 

[sploo]

Both far left and far right are characterised by authoritarian dogma forcing a polarised view on all.

UK political success has largely been found in the centre ground - probably why in terms of likely outcomes there is little to choose between a Labour and Tory government.

Painting those slightly to the right of centre "far right" is to align them with the worst excesses of Hitler, Franco, Mussolini. Those slightly left of centre do not warrant association with the extremes of Stalin, Mao, or even those whose names are often used as insults - Marx. Lenin, Trotsky.

That Farage has garnered such support (not mine!) is a reflection of:

• his presentational skills which far exceed those of Starmer and Sunak
• his willingness to risk opprobrium by being explicit and direct
• the superficial attractiveness of many policies to an often ill educated public
• the utterly uninspiring "sunlit uplands" that the political establishment promote

As a political threat he will not be neutered by rational argument on normal political lines - that is what the Remainers did with Brexit facing a similarly talented and equally flawed Boris. That his sums don't add up, and policies questionable will not deter his supporters.

To use a footballing expression - the best approach may be to "play the man, not the ball".

I wasn't making any comment about left vs right wing economic views; just that people such as Farage are advocators, and admirers, of extreme authoritarianism. Handing such people power is very dangerous - because power and control is their main goal; and anyone opposed tends to become a target.

Good points about the ineffectiveness of rational argument in the face of his supporters though.

 

[RobinBHM]

But most of them don't come from those type of countries

The data shows the majority arriving by small boats come from:

Syria
Afghanistan
Eritrea
Iran
Iraq
Yemen
Somalia

Countries of war / persecution

And most don't have passports to confirm that..

None of them have passports….countries that persecute their citizens aren’t too ready to issue passports.

If you can prove you have come from a country that isnt safe to live in.

It is the asylum seekers responsibility to provide evidence of who they are why they need asylum, without it their claim can’t be processed


These are not economic migrants, most are genuinely fleeing for their lives……things have to be very bad to risk such a a dangerous journey