|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 18, 2023 10:17:39 GMT
You arent very good at law are you? There is nothing in the UK or French law to prevent someone storing a boat behind a sand dune, launching it and heading in a direction. Under French Law all boats over 2.5 meters need to be registered and fly the French flag. Failure to comply is an offence that can result in confiscation of the boat. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2023 10:29:50 GMT
Part of the problem is that those of the nasty populist Right seem to believe that ALL asylum applicants are not genuine, or that even genuine asylum seekers have no right to claim asylum in this country. and those of the loony Left seem to think that ALL asylum applicants ARE genuine, and refuse to acknowledge that some are not genuine. The reality is somewhere in between, and though I am very much in favour of sorting out the genuine from those which are merely economic migrants, and sending thos back who are not genuine, I also believe that as per international law, we must take our fair share of genuine people seeking sanctuary. If a person seeking asylum in the UK cannot do it in France, and if they have no money, no possessions, then how do you expect them to claim asylum in the UK. ? When will you lefties get in into your heads that to pay a people trafficker to get you from one safe country to another safe country regardless of which country you're in, is in-fact a criminal offence. You lot are away with the left wing fairies. There you go again - you are ASSUMING that every person crossing the English Channel is been transported with help from people traffickers. Even if they were been assisted by People Traffickers, why would it matter if the people were genuinely fleeing either war, persecution or torture etc. ? In 1938 is was illegal to assist Jews escaping Germany ( people traffickers ) - STOP the people traffickers by allowing asylum applications to be made on the French side of the channel. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Aug 18, 2023 10:40:03 GMT
When will you lefties get in into your heads that to pay a people trafficker to get you from one safe country to another safe country regardless of which country you're in, is in-fact a criminal offence. You lot are away with the left wing fairies. There you go again - you are ASSUMING that every person crossing the English Channel is been transported with help from people traffickers. Even if they were been assisted by People Traffickers, why would it matter if the people were genuinely fleeing either war, persecution or torture etc. ? In 1938 is was illegal to assist Jews escaping Germany ( people traffickers ) - STOP the people traffickers by allowing asylum applications to be made on the French side of the channel. To be honest whether illegals pay traffickers or not is neither here nor there, essentially it's a technicality. Entering the UK via an indirect route such as a dinghy from the safe EU state of France, is a criminal act. The Government could stop it, and as I've said previously if they did stop it international law would be on their side. Why they don't stop illegals entering British territorial waters is something of a mystery, in my opinion Sunak is frightened of upsetting the EU. 1938 was 85 years ago, the world is a very different place today which is why legislation penned in the shadow of WW2 urgently needs scrapping and replaced with legislation that is fit for purpose. By the way, are you aware that the EU is considering changing the law to make 'asylum seekers' claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2023 10:51:18 GMT
There you go again - you are ASSUMING that every person crossing the English Channel is been transported with help from people traffickers. Even if they were been assisted by People Traffickers, why would it matter if the people were genuinely fleeing either war, persecution or torture etc. ? In 1938 is was illegal to assist Jews escaping Germany ( people traffickers ) - STOP the people traffickers by allowing asylum applications to be made on the French side of the channel. To be honest whether illegals pay traffickers or not is neither here nor there, essentially it's a technicality. Entering the UK via an indirect route such as a dinghy from the safe EU state of France, is a criminal act. The Government could stop it, and as I've said previously if they did stop it international law would be on their side. Why they don't stop illegals entering British territorial waters is something of a mystery, in my opinion Sunak is frightened of upsetting the EU. 1938 was 85 years ago, the world is a very different place today which is why legislation penned in the shadow of WW2 urgently needs scrapping and replaced with legislation that is fit for purpose. By the way, are you aware that the EU is considering changing the law to make 'asylum seekers' claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. How do you propose to get around these "technicalities" ? Entering the UK by any other means other than official entry using a passport or visa is illegal However, any person who fits the criteria, is allowed under international law to come here and claim Asylum, how do you marry these two facts up. ? The government is not making any sense, they say that they will honour their international obligations, but at the same time they seem to want to stop people from coming here to claim asylum. Also, they will not allow asylum applications to be made in France. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Aug 18, 2023 11:14:54 GMT
To be honest whether illegals pay traffickers or not is neither here nor there, essentially it's a technicality. Entering the UK via an indirect route such as a dinghy from the safe EU state of France, is a criminal act. The Government could stop it, and as I've said previously if they did stop it international law would be on their side. Why they don't stop illegals entering British territorial waters is something of a mystery, in my opinion Sunak is frightened of upsetting the EU. 1938 was 85 years ago, the world is a very different place today which is why legislation penned in the shadow of WW2 urgently needs scrapping and replaced with legislation that is fit for purpose. By the way, are you aware that the EU is considering changing the law to make 'asylum seekers' claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. How do you propose to get around these "technicalities" ? Entering the UK by any other means other than official entry using a passport or visa is illegal However, any person who fits the criteria, is allowed under international law to come here and claim Asylum, how do you marry these two facts up. ? The government is not making any sense, they say that they will honour their international obligations, but at the same time they seem to want to stop people from coming here to claim asylum. Also, they will not allow asylum applications to be made in France. International law clearly sets out that any country with a sea border can stop any person or vessel entering it's territorial waters, as Australia did when they were faced with an illegal immigrant invasion. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) linkArticle 33: Contigus zone. 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. Lefties may not like it, but the fact is if Sunak stopped illegals entering UK waters, by force if necessary, the law would be on his side. |
|
