Loads of Albanians

[ajohn]

Once here a detected crime is a way of getting deported.

Asylum isn't that simple either. The authorities may decide to allow some one to stay for other reasons not relating to coming from war zones etc. Relatives and age can be two reasons. There may be others.

 

[Pat ex]

Once here a detected crime is a way of getting deported.

Asylum isn't that simple either. The authorities may decide to allow some one to stay for other reasons not relating to coming from war zones etc. Relatives and age can be two reasons. There may be others.

There are multiple reasons for granting asylum: religious persecution, persecution due to gender, sexuality or political persuasion, etc.
It's not just escaping a war zone.

It would be nonsensical to deport someone to Rwanda who has escaped due to their sexuality, when Rwanda marginalises and stigmatises gay sex.

In addition, it is not possible to come from any other country, but France, to claim asylum, when it is not possible to travel to UK by any other regular means.
So this clause would render all and any asylum seeker coming to UK from France, as illegal immigrants and liable to be deported to Rwanda.

 

[motorbiking]

If it is as simple as that 1 section (taken on its own) , then why are we not deporting more and faster?

because there is a huge and well funded legal industry finding all sorts of reasons why they must remain here.

Are you suggesting that all refugees have been found guilty of

(3)In England and Wales and Northern Ireland the offences to which this section applies are any offence, and any attempt to commit an offence, under—

(a)Part I of the M1Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (forgery and connected offences);

[F2(aa)section 4 or 6 of the Identity Documents Act 2010;]

(b)section 24A of the 1971 Act (deception); or

(c)section 26(1)(d) of the 1971 Act (falsification of documents).

You understand what it means to say "any offence, and" Do you think that might include sec 24? https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1971/77/section/24

There are multiple reasons for granting asylum: religious persecution, persecution due to gender, sexuality or political persuasion, etc.
It's not just escaping a war zone.

It would be nonsensical to deport someone to Rwanda who has escaped due to their sexuality, when Rwanda marginalises and stigmatises gay sex.

In addition, it is not possible to come from any other country, but France, to claim asylum, when it is not possible to travel to UK by any other regular means.
So this clause would render all and any asylum seeker coming to UK from France, as illegal immigrants and liable to be deported to Rwanda.

Its entirely possible. Unlikely but possible. Some even stop in other EU countries and try their luck with a claim along the way.

 

[Pat ex]

because there is a huge and well funded legal industry finding all sorts of reasons why they must remain here.

Well if there are reasons, it's worth finding them.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

because there is a huge and well funded legal industry finding all sorts of reasons why they must remain here.

Then that paragraph on its own doesnt mean what you want it to mean.

In other words it is not that simple

 

[motorbiking]

I don’t have any desire for it to mean anything other than what it says.

I would like it if the government were able to process bogus applications quicker. I can also find many more deserving priorities for the legal aid spent helping them. Even under the new system with capped fees. The government will spend £50m a year just on legal services getting those to be deported processed.

Of the 1.5bn that is very small. But it would be helpful spent elsewhere

 

[carmanmemoranda]

I don’t have any desire for it to mean anything other than what it says.

I would like it if the government were able to process bogus applications quicker. I can also find many more deserving priorities for the legal aid spent helping them. Even under the new system with capped fees. The government will spend £50m a year just on legal services getting those to be deported processed.

Of the 1.5bn that is very small. But it would be helpful spent elsewhere

I would like this government to get a system under control and operating well.

But to produce a government document and assert that its a simple rule, was at best misleading.

Its a complicated set of rules (this governments rules), and if it holds their system up, who should be held responsible ? Not the French by the way, nor those claiming asylum, nor their legal representatives. Purely and simply, our government.

Trying to shift the blame is.......... (choose your own word )

 

[Mottie]

.

 

[JP_]

That's a damn good question.

Climate Change is already a factor in migration to Europe from Africa and the Middle East - considering how slowly developed countries have been to implement greener, cleaner energy it's certainly going to provoke increased migration from countries affected by rising temperatures and sea levels.

Climate change will become the biggest drive of migration. Trumps wall was partly to stop climate refugees from central America. Obviously he wouldn't admit that though.

 

[JohnD]

You understand what it means to say "any offence, and"

You seem to have missed the word "under."

"(3)In England and Wales and Northern Ireland the offences to which this section applies are any offence, and any attempt to commit an offence, under—

(a)Part I of the M1Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (forgery and connected offences);"

(etc.)

Why are you assuming that all refugees have been found guilty of one of these offences?

 

[motorbiking]

I would like this government to get a system under control and operating well.

But to produce a government document and assert that its a simple rule, was at best misleading.

Its a complicated set of rules (this governments rules), and if it holds their system up, who should be held responsible ? Not the French by the way, nor those claiming asylum, nor their legal representatives. Purely and simply, our government.

Trying to shift the blame is.......... (choose your own word )

You refer to statute (Law) as government documents?

To remind you of the challenge JohnD set Vinty

by all means waste your time trying to find a law that says what you think it does.

That being a refugee is obliged to seek asylum in the first safe country.

The Immigration and Asylum Act 1991 reduces their right to protection under article 31 if they can show no valid reason for not doing so. So in fact Vinty is correct - there is an obligation and the claimant must show why they didn't. The second issue arrises by the interpretation of the meaning "directly".

In the case of the Uxbridge 3 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1999/765.html. The government of the day (Tony Blair's labour govt, I recall) argued that stopping over in other safe countries meant they had not arrived directly and therefore could not be protected. IMO it should never have got to court as all 3 were granted asylum. For me, once they are granted asylum the convention should apply broadly to any immigration offences. In the text of the ruling you can see that had not been considered. That was a bit of a screw up.

The UNHCR recommended amending UK legislation to address this. This was central to the finding by the court on the Uxbridge 3. Those changes were never implemented. Instead parliament has opted to state that failure to claim in the first safe country without good cause is grounds for refusal and therefore leaves the person open to prosecution for offences.

European mainland authorities know, that if a migrant is on route to the UK, it is best not to challenge or arrest them for immigration offences, because allowing them to continue onward means its not going to be their problem. The Dublin convention addressed this. The UK needs to come up with a solution to that. The Rwanda thing, may end up being that.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Must be very easy to process, reject and deport then?

So why arent we ?

 

[noseall]

It's as if no asylum claimant seeks refuge in any other country, and 'they're all coming here...'
Wrong.
The UK probably has the lowest numbers. Of course we an expect some claimants, why shouldn't we. After all the rest of Europe, Jordan Turkey etc take in millions.

 

[motorbiking]

43% of all claims are rejected on the basis of a safe 3rd country - i.e. they did not arrive directly to the UK.
The UK ranks number 5 in the world as the country with the most migrants. We are also top 3 in Europe for "irregular migrants" (illegals).
It is predicted that we will have 60,000+ boat people crossings this year.

That is the population of the Isle of Wight every 2 years, and its growing fast.

So no they are not all coming here, and no we don't have the lowest numbers.

 

[Pat ex]

That being a refugee is obliged to seek asylum in the first safe country.

The Immigration and Asylum Act 1991 reduces their right to protection under article 31 if they can show no valid reason for not doing so. So in fact Vinty is correct - there is an obligation and the claimant must show why they didn't. The second issue arrises by the interpretation of the meaning "directly".

Only updated by that clause, end of June or July 2022.

Textual Amendments

F1Words in s. 31(2) substituted (28.6.2022) by Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (c. 36), ss. 37(5)(a), 87(1); S.I. 2022/590, regs. 1(2), 2, Sch. 1 para. 19 (with Sch. 2 para. 6)

Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

An Act to make provision about immigration and asylum; to make provision about procedures in connection with marriage on superintendent registrar’s certificate; and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

And can't be retrospectively applied, and is subject to review in UK court in September, and the 'penalty' of being transferred to Rwanda has been stopped by ECHR, so far.