Death in the channel…again

[gant]

I think you've just reiterated what I said only in a longer format.
Will you be voting and if so will it be for 'faith healer' Starmer good look with that if you think he's the answer.
Labour cultivated the Muslim vote thinking the working class would vote for them for ever. The muslims have started to turn on them and are in the process of forming their own party and the working class that left will see know reason to go back to them.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Did you skip maths at school 3/4M = three quarters of a million. About 750,000. Last time I checked.

If I’d meant three to four million I’d have said 3 - 4M

Try this next time so that your intention is clear: £¾M, or even £0.75M.
In normal writing 3/4 million can mean 0.75M million or 3 or 4 million.
If I say he/she, the forward slash is always meant to indicate one or the other. It does not mean 'he' divided by 'she'.

if you want your audience to undertsand what you have to say, it's your responsibility to make your comments clear and unequivocal.
Unless you intend to be vague and ambiguous.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Anyone (apart from a few exceptions) who arrives via small boat, illegally etc. No longer has a right to claim asylum in the UK. We discussed this last time - it's in the Illegal Migration Act 2023. So I am correctly referring to them as illegal immigrants.

Only according to UK domestic law. I bet if any of them took their case to the ECHR, they'd win their case to have their asylum application considered.

 

[Roy Bloom]

What route are are they planning to follow to get here? Lets count how many safe countries they pass through.

Irrelevant.
People can choose which country to apply.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Correct. If they have a skill we need, they are very welcome.

Just under half of the non-EU immigrants come for family reasons, not for work.

 

[Roy Bloom]

I actually think he thinks it's due to Brexit and nothing to do with well established international people trafficking gangs based in Turkey, Kurdistan and Albania... and now London.

The trafficking gangs only account for about 2% of net immigration.

 

[Roy Bloom]

I don't believe the UK has/had 17.5M racist xenophobes who voted leave because they hate foreigners or want fewer people coming here. I think many saw the EU for what it is. A bloated corrupt money pit that serves Euro members above everyone else.

Not all Brexers are racist xenophobes.
Bu you can bet your bottom dollar that all racist xenophobes voted fot Brexit.

 

[Roy Bloom]

No I'm saying UK employees are more attractive because UK employment law gives employers flexibility. I can hire a UK worker with zero risk and if they don't perform within the first 2 years I can terminate the contract. In most parts of Europe that probation is less than 6 month and in many areas, I have to compensate them for the loss of their job.

Employment law ia applicable in the country of employment. If you hire in UK, Uk employment law applies.
If you hire in Greece, Greek employment law applies.
It dopes not depend on the nationality of the worker as to which employment law applies.

 

[motorbiking]

The trafficking gangs only account for about 2% of net immigration.

but probably 90% of illegal immigration. It's illegal immigration that is the problem. The only winners are the criminals

Employment law ia applicable in the country of employment. If you hire in UK, Uk employment law applies.
If you hire in Greece, Greek employment law applies.
It dopes not depend on the nationality of the worker as to which employment law applies.

Which is why I referred to them as a UK Employee or UK worker and not a British citizen. but thanks for the lesson in employment law, that I didn't need. Its also wrong anyway as Greece (as well as Spain, Germany, Norway and a few others) recognise the concept of "digital nomads".

Irrelevant.
People can choose which country to apply.

provided they choose lawful routes - from a UK perspective at least.

Only according to UK domestic law. I bet if any of them took their case to the ECHR, they's win their case to have their asylum application considered.

but as you should be aware the European Convention on Human Rights does not provide for a right to asylum and recognises its up to the state to decide. There is of course a right to life, article 2. But deporting someone to a safe 3rd country, doesn't infringe that. Not to mention, as you know ECHR hasn't got much power anyway.

 

[Roy Bloom]

but probably 90% of illegal immigration. It's illegal immigration that is the problem.

About 75%, at the initial stage of those 'illegal trafficked immigrants' prove to be legal asylum seekers.

The only winners are the criminals

Only due to UK policies. If there was a legal way to arrive in UK and claim asylum, it would put the traffickers out of business at a stroke.
It's the UK policies that create the criminal's market.

Which is why I referred to them as a UK Employee or UK worker and not a British citizen. but thanks for the lesson in employment law, that I didn't need. Its also wrong anyway as Greece among others recognise the concept of "digital nomads"

So your reference to other EU country's employment law was irrelevant.

provided they choose lawful routes - from a UK perspective at least.

The concept of 'safe and legal routes' in the new law refers to those routes specifically mentioned by the Home Sec'.
Safe and legal routes as a concept does not apply to 'boat arrivals'. And it is 'boat arrivals' that we are discussing, not the 'safe and legal routes' defined by the Home Sec'.

but as you should be aware the European Convention on Human Rights does not provide for a right to asylum and recognises its up to the state to decide. There is of course a right to life, article 2. But deporting someone to a safe 3rd country, doesn't infringe that. Not to mention, as you know ECHR hasn't got much power anyway.

Of course the ECHR does not provide a right to asylum.
But if the asylum seeker has a genuine case, the ECHR would not allow a return to their country of origin. And the UK has no power to force that asylum seeker on any other country.
So the UK would have two choices: permanent detention (probably involve the ECHR again ) or process the application for asylum.
Thus, the eventual; outcome would be for the UK to process the application.

 

[motorbiking]

About 75%, at the initial stage of those 'illegal trafficked immigrants' prove to be legal asylum seekers.

Not any more.

Only due to UK policies. If there was a legal way to arrive in UK and claim asylum, it would put the traffickers out of business at a stroke.
It's the UK policies that create the criminal's market.

No its people wanting to come here illegally that created the illegal market.

So your reference to other EU country's employment law was irrelevant.

It is highly relevant. Why would I want to hire someone who instantly has the right to compensation if he turns out to be rubbish, when I can take a risk on someone who isn't quite what I want and take up to 2 years to see if it works out.

Of course the ECHR does not provide a right to asylum.
But if the asylum seeker has a genuine case, the ECHR would not allow a return to their country of origin. And the UK has no power to force that asylum seeker on any other country.
So the UK would have two choices: permanent detention (probably involve the ECHR again ) or process the application for asylum.
Thus, the eventual; outcome would be for the UK to process the application.

2D thinking - how is he going to get his claim heard? How is the ECHR going to give him the right to have his claim heard? Does the ECHR not allow the lawful punishment of criminals providing it is legislated for? Do we not have such legislation that says come here via illegal route and we will refuse to consider any claim for asylum.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Not any more.

The government just accomodare them until something else happens, but they don't know what yet.
Maybe a general election.

No its people wanting to come here illegally that created the illegal market.

People want to migrate to UK. There's a choice of a safe and legal route, or anu unsafe risky route. The safe and legal route is the cheapest. Which would you choose?
If there was a legal route, they wouldn't risk their lives on an unsafe route at the mercy of the traffickers. There would be no customers for the traffickers.

It is highly relevant. Why would I want to hire someone who instantly has the right to compensation if he turns out to be rubbish, when I can take a risk on someone who isn't quite what I want and take up to 2 years to see if it works out.

It all depends on the complexity of the work.
For highly skilled or top tier professionals, a two year contract is a very short period to have an influence. Whereas a semi-skilled or unskilled worker only needs a short time to demonstrate their capability.

2D thinking - how is he going to get his claim heard? How is the ECHR going to give him the right to have his claim heard? Does the ECHR not allow the lawful punishment of criminals providing it is legislated for? Do we not have such legislation that says come here via illegal route and we will refuse to consider any claim for asylum.

If the asylum seeker is being returned to their place of origin where their human rights would be at risk, the ECHR would hear the case, on the same basis as if the Rwanda flights are implemented.
The domestic law would not cover the denial of Human rights. You can't legislate away anyone's Human Rights.
That is the raison d'etre of the ECHR.

 

[noseall]

. It's illegal immigration that is the problem.

Nonsense.

750'000 and you say it's the illegals? Lol.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

. Not to mention, as you know ECHR hasn't got much power anyway.

But it's a good thing for the Tories to blame for all our problems

 

[Notch7]

as you know ECHR hasn't got much power anyway

You mean populist govts with no morals can ignore an international agreement that protects people.

thank goodness Tories are running out of road.

I hope Labour introduce PR and the Tory party would be finished forever