|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 7, 2023 11:39:28 GMT
Before the conversation switched to the legality of paying a people traficker it was focusing on whether or not small-boat arrivals were illegal immigrants at the point of arrival and indeed up until the point they had an asylum claim officially registered. Per the 1971 Immigrant Act the answer is yes, although it seems that the authorities are turning a blind eye.
As for the comparison with speeding, did you note that the offence of illegal entry can carry up to a four year jail sentence?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 7, 2023 11:39:46 GMT
HELLO!!!
They are coming from FRANCE, what war is raging in France?
Is Macron persecuting them, is their lives in danger ......... NO
To claim asylum, an asylum seeker must prove that they are unable to live safely in any area of their home or country of origin, due to a well-founded fear of persecution. The persecution must be as a result of: Your race/ ethnicity. Your religious beliefs
**That is NOT happening to them in France ^^
So they are illegal migrants with no valid legitimacy to claim Asylum in the UK ..... END OF
Do you read the links in your own post. Read again the bit in bold. Then tell me how it a) applies to a Syrian Kurd who has travelled through France to claim asylum in the UK. b0 to a French National travelling from Paris to UK to claim asylum. Where does it mention most of them are Albanian criminals being shipped in to be runners for the UK Albanian drugs gangs?
Surely you can't be that naive ...... or then again 
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Aug 7, 2023 11:41:09 GMT
Entering the UK without permission is an offence under section 24 of the 1971 Immigration Act: 24.— Illegal entry and similar offences. ... (B1) A person who— (a) requires leave to enter the United Kingdom under this Act, and (b) knowingly enters the United Kingdom without such leave, commits an offence. (F1) A person who commits an offence under any of subsections (A1) to (E1) is liable— (a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both); (b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both); (c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both); (d) on conviction on indictment— (i) for an offence under subsection (A1), to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine (or both); (ii) for an offence under any of subsections (B1) to (E1), to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four years or a fine (or both). Not sure what point you are answering Dan. Red seems to be arguing that paying a people smuggler to arrive here is a separate crime to just travelling here in a dinghy you bought in a French supermarket. Not convinced it is. I agree that arriving by unconventional means is technically against the law - a bit like speeding. Neither would normally be described as a criminal. Unlike speeding it is accepted that those here to claim asylum have no other choice and hence do not get penalised. Last year you were stating that those who recevied a FPN were criminals for having a glass of whine and a peice of cake..... Do make your mind up FFS. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Aug 7, 2023 11:42:54 GMT
Entering the UK without permission is an offence under section 24 of the 1971 Immigration Act: 24.— Illegal entry and similar offences. ... (B1) A person who— (a) requires leave to enter the United Kingdom under this Act, and (b) knowingly enters the United Kingdom without such leave, commits an offence. (F1) A person who commits an offence under any of subsections (A1) to (E1) is liable— (a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both); (b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both); (c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both); (d) on conviction on indictment— (i) for an offence under subsection (A1), to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine (or both); (ii) for an offence under any of subsections (B1) to (E1), to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four years or a fine (or both). Also... United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. SECTION 4. CONTIGUOUS ZONE Article 33 1. In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to: (a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; (b) punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea. 2. The contiguous zone may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdfThe law is clearly on the side of the government if only they chose to implement it. The reason they don't is because they are weak and worried about the EU reneging on the Trade and cooperation agreement. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 7, 2023 11:48:57 GMT
Before the conversation switched to the legality of paying a people traficker it was focusing on whether or not small-boat arrivals were illegal immigrants at the point of arrival and indeed up until the point they had an asylum claim officially registered. Per the 1971 Immigrant Act the answer is yes, although it seems that the authorities are turning a blind eye.
As for the comparison with speeding, did you note that the offence of illegal entry can carry up to a four year jail sentence?
I think it is right that people arriving by boat are technically illegal immigrants up to the point at which they claim asylum, Dan. I am not sure whether they transition to asylum seeker at the point they say "i claim asylum" or when an official formally registers that claim. Not sure I understand the relevance of your point. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 7, 2023 11:50:27 GMT
Do you read the links in your own post. Read again the bit in bold. Then tell me how it a) applies to a Syrian Kurd who has travelled through France to claim asylum in the UK. b0 to a French National travelling from Paris to UK to claim asylum. Where does it mention most of them are Albanian criminals being shipped in to be runners for the UK Albanian drugs gangs?
Surely you can't be that naive ...... or then again
It appears that Fairsociety has realised his error..... |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 7, 2023 11:56:03 GMT
Where does it mention most of them are Albanian criminals being shipped in to be runners for the UK Albanian drugs gangs?
Surely you can't be that naive ...... or then again
It appears that Fairsociety has realised his error..... It appears you haven't got the foggiest idea who's in those dinghy's, you don't know a asylum seeker from a refugee to a illegal migrant, everyone knows Albanians are in those dinghy's, Albania is a safe country, they are just fast-tracking the system, and I think you know already know that. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 7, 2023 12:07:06 GMT
Fairsociety initially posted that anyone travelling through France to the UK couldn't be a legitimate asylum seeker and in the vey same post posted a link that proved the exact opposite.
For some reason he now tries to divert from the foolishness of his post by talking about Albanians. As it happens Albanians represented a very small proportion of people crossing by boat in Q1 2023 but as their mention is purely a diversionary technique, best to keep thread on topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Aug 7, 2023 12:10:17 GMT
dappy: I think what happens in practice is that once a new arrival requests to claim asylum they enter the queue for a screening interview with an immigration officer. If the IO approves the request they go on the next stage, the so-called 'substantive' interview which is much more rigorous and which usually decides whether the claim will succeed or not. Reports indicate that, while for small-boat arrivals the screening interview 'should' take place 'soon' after arrival for others it is routinely taking several months after initial request. Since the screening interview determines whether the claim will be accepted for official review it is only at that time that the claimant becomes 'legal'. I think what is happening is that the government is ignoring the illegality of new arrivals and treating all as legal until the winnowing process commences with the screening interview some indeterminate time after arrival. It could be a matter of hours or a matter of months but again, according the law, until that stage is reached they will be illegal. righttoremain.org.uk/toolkit/screening/
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 7, 2023 12:17:00 GMT
Still struggling a little bit to understand your point Dan. Is it simply as to whether someone who has not had their screening interview is formally an asylum seeker or formally still an illegal immigrant.
Wasn't aware this shambles of a Government has even lost control of initial screening interviews and that what should be done pretty much instantly is now routinely left for months - during which time of course the british government pays for accommodation and the person seeking asylum is left in limbo. What an utter shambles.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Aug 7, 2023 12:17:34 GMT
Isn't it the duty of the government to act within the law? They have the power through parliament to make changes, but they can't ignore the law, the same as you and me. And you can't blame the judiciary for upholding the law either. That's the sort of ignorance that I'd expect from the less thinking members of this forum. but are they ‘upholding it’ ir ‘making it’. I refer to the definition of Case Law…. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Aug 7, 2023 12:25:06 GMT
Ok let's simplify it. The UK no longer accepts FOM. So FOM outside the UK only applies to EU member states. So anyone in or out of those member states can no long enter the UK legally under the FOM. So they have now devised a loophole that allows FOM to abuse the UK system by chartering dinghy's from France to the UK, full of illegal migrants (who could have claimed FOM, but can't after Brexit) who have been told by our dishonest solicitors to say they are 'asylum seekers' / refugees/ fleeing torture and persecution' ... but please don't mention you are really pissed off Freedom of Movement who can't move to the UK, so now you have to be in the guise of refugees/asylum seekers. You still dont get it Freedom of Movement, which wasn’t remotely as free when you went FROM the Uk TO the EU - i know because i DID - was reserved for passport holding registered citizens of one of the 27 EU countries. It was a right (actually it wasn’t, see above) to enter one EU state from another to seek employment in that other state This has absolutely fuck all to do with illegals wandering around the EU looking for somewhere to claim asylum. Arguably such people might have had an easier time crossing between Schengen zone countries but again that is fuck all to do with FoM |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 7, 2023 12:28:57 GMT
Fairsociety initially posted that anyone travelling through France to the UK couldn't be a legitimate asylum seeker and in the vey same post posted a link that proved the exact opposite. For some reason he now tries to divert from the foolishness of his post by talking about Albanians. As it happens Albanians represented a very small proportion of people crossing by boat in Q1 2023 but as their mention is purely a diversionary technique, best to keep thread on topic. That one sentence you've posted tells me all I need to know about you lack of knowledge on illegal migrants, and for that reason, it's pointless debating the topic with you.
In 2022, more than a quarter of the 45,755 people who crossed the Channel in small boats came from Albania and most claimed asylum. In one year the number of Albanians arriving in the UK by this route had gone from 800 to 12,301, a rise that was both unexpected and unexplained.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 7, 2023 12:32:01 GMT
Ok let's simplify it. The UK no longer accepts FOM. So FOM outside the UK only applies to EU member states. So anyone in or out of those member states can no long enter the UK legally under the FOM. So they have now devised a loophole that allows FOM to abuse the UK system by chartering dinghy's from France to the UK, full of illegal migrants (who could have claimed FOM, but can't after Brexit) who have been told by our dishonest solicitors to say they are 'asylum seekers' / refugees/ fleeing torture and persecution' ... but please don't mention you are really pissed off Freedom of Movement who can't move to the UK, so now you have to be in the guise of refugees/asylum seekers. You still dont get it Freedom of Movement, which wasn’t remotely as free when you went FROM the Uk TO the EU - i know because i DID - was reserved for passport holding registered citizens of one of the 27 EU countries. It was a right (actually it wasn’t, see above) to enter one EU state from another to seek employment in that other state This has absolutely fuck all to do with illegals wandering around the EU looking for somewhere to claim asylum. Arguably such people might have had an easier time crossing between Schengen zone countries but again that is fuck all to do with FoM We don't accept FOM, so there's only two ways to enter the UK now, that's applying legally, or entering illegally, we closed one gate and another one opened. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 7, 2023 12:33:39 GMT
2022 and Q1 2023 are two different things.
|
|
