|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 14, 2024 21:30:34 GMT
'Airside' is best considered as extra-territorial, neither completely within a country nor completely out of it. I'm sure we've all read stories of unfortunates who for one reason or another is stranded there in limbo, sometimes for years. Th fact of the matter is that you do not come under jurisdiction of a state from an immigration control perspective until you step over the invisible line marked 'The Border', usually when allowed to do so by an immigration officer. In every UK airport that I have been in the border is clearly indicated by large signage above the immigration inspection desks. Until you pass that point you are still extra-territorial. Of course one way to enter without the necessary documentation is to utter the magic words 'I wish to claim asylum' to an immigration officer. A screening interview will then take place to determine whether the claim can be registered; if yes, the claimant will be allowed to enter ('cross the border'). If not, the claimant will be sent to immigration detention, either a short-term holding facility at the airport itself if the claimant can be immediately returned, or a long-term one elsewhere if not. I see no reason why a similar protocol could not be implemented for small-boat arrivals, in fact I believe it already is at 'intake units' like that at Manston from where many Albanian channel-paddlers were deported without having 'crossed the border'. "...Last month’s removals include 22 people who were directly removed to their home country from Manston, the migrant processing centre in Kent." www.gov.uk/government/news/nearly-350-foreign-criminals-and-immigration-offenders-removedIn effect there is already a 'sea-side' protocol in place although it appears to be rather ad hoc at the moment. I see no immediate impediment to the government setting up other similar 'sea-side' holding centres from where there are two possible exit pathways: entry permitted as an asylum claimant on immigration bail, or immediate deportation via a detention centre without ever having crossed the border. You have more idea than Steppenwolf ,Dan but you are still quite a long way off. If you want extra-territorial confusion, a good place to say murder your wife would be in flight. Which country has jurisdiction then is pretty complicated. Once you step off the plane though , it is very simple. Airside at Heathrow is as much British as Newport Pagnall services. Airlines get fined very heavily if a passenger turns up at Heathrow without passport and if needed a visa so it very rarely happens but it is not totally unknown. If they do the airline will be expected to fly him home with the host country’s consent. The procedure is contained in the Tokyo Convention. It almost never happens that a person turns up at Heathrow without passport and visa intending to claim asylum. In the rare occasion he does, Tokyo does not apply and he goes into the asylum system. It is relatively common for people to turn up with passport and visa but then claim asylum. They go into the asylum system too. At one stage Heathrow was the port with the highest number of asylum claimants. Not sure if that is true now. If someone claims asylum, whether at Dover, not at a port, at say Heathrow with a visa or theoretically at Heathrow without a visa (although this almost never happens) they all go through the same process. There is an initial screening interview to determine whether their claim is credible. If so they enter the “main” asylum system, if not the country will seek to deport them. It doesn’t matter if first contact with the authorities is in Dover, airside at Heathrow or coming out the back of a lorry in Slough. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 14, 2024 21:57:59 GMT
It's unclear why you continue wittering on about murders and so forth. I made it quite quite clear that 'airside' is extra-territorial for the purposes of immigration control. Which it clearly and obviously is. A traveller is not deemed to have legally entered the United Kingdom unless and until he is admitted across the border by an immigration official. Until such time as that occurs he remains in an extra-territorial location as far as the immigration regulations are concerned. That doesn't mean that should he commit some other transgression whilst there, shoplifting say, assault, vandalism or even murder, one or another domestic agency cannot be called in to deal with him. Of course they can. Airside or 'Seaside' for that matter is not a lawless zone it's just somewhere that has a special status as far as immigration control is concerned. That's the very simple point that seems to be eluding you.
"Airside at Heathrow is as much British as Newport Pagnall services. "
What nonsense! Not as far as immigration is concerned it isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 14, 2024 22:20:36 GMT
Well no Steppenwolf was trying to claim that airside is international territory. I am glad you agree that he is talking nonsense.
Airside does have some special rules. If you are in transit through Heathrow, the Tokyo convention seems that you have not formally entered the UK and hence don’t need a UK visa.
If you arrive in the UK without a visa or passport, Tokyo insists that the airline must fly the passenger back to his embarkation point and that country should take him in. This of course rarely happens as airlines are fined heavily if they do.
Tokyo does not apply if someone arrives without a visa and claims asylum here although that almost never happens.
Steppenwolf plan is I believe for the government to designate part of the port of Dover “airside” along with a corridor to Manston and then to fly them back to say Iraq without them being able to claim asylum here. That plan simply doesn’t work.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 15, 2024 8:52:54 GMT
Well no Steppenwolf was trying to claim that airside is international territory. I am glad you agree that he is talking nonsense.Airside does have some special rules. If you are in transit through Heathrow, the Tokyo convention seems that you have not formally entered the UK and hence don’t need a UK visa. If you arrive in the UK without a visa or passport, Tokyo insists that the airline must fly the passenger back to his embarkation point and that country should take him in. This of course rarely happens as airlines are fined heavily if they do. Tokyo does not apply if someone arrives without a visa and claims asylum here although that almost never happens. Steppenwolf plan is I believe for the government to designate part of the port of Dover “airside” along with a corridor to Manston and then to fly them back to say Iraq without them being able to claim asylum here. That plan simply doesn’t work. I don't think I ever said airside is international territory. You're just NOT in the UK until you pass through border control. That's why it's called a "border" you muppet. And I don't think DD is "agreeing that I'm talking nonsense". You always try to do this to bolster your nonsensical arguments. DD has basically understood what I'm saying - i.e. to bring the rules for people arriving by boat more into line with those for air passengers. There's no logical reason why there should be any difference. You've never understood the rules for immigration - because you basically don't believe in borders. In fact, according to Richard Tice, we already have the right (under international law) to take people straight back to wherever they came from if they don't comply with immigration rules. We can do this already. I'm just suggesting a little formalisation of the process along the lines of air travel. I'm well aware that idiots like you - who hate this country and want to destroy it - will do everything they can to try to block changes that allow us to tackle the problem of the invasion of muslims into this country, but if we don't succeed in stopping them we will lose our country. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 15, 2024 9:25:57 GMT
Ooh, apparently I "hate this country and want to destroy it" because I have been pointing out the factual inaccuracies in Steppenwolf's ill-considered rants. Bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Feb 15, 2024 10:15:27 GMT
Ooh, apparently I "hate this country and want to destroy it" because I have been pointing out the factual inaccuracies in Steppenwolf's ill-considered rants. Bless. I think you are trolling now. What DD said supported Steppenwolf's view. You were wrong, but not adult enough to admit it. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 15, 2024 12:11:09 GMT
...Steppenwolf plan is I believe for the government to designate part of the port of Dover “airside” along with a corridor to Manston and then to fly them back to say Iraq without them being able to claim asylum here. That plan simply doesn’t work. Can you explain why not?
It works OK airside - insofar as the system is adequately enforced - so why would it not work 'seaside'?
I already showed you a UK Gov source which confirms it has been implemented on a limited scale with Albanians deported from Manston. The only difficulty I can see is scaling the system up to deal with the thousands of illegal migrants (as defined by current legislation) who are arriving daily by small boat.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 15, 2024 13:00:22 GMT
FFS Dan I already have repeatedly. I'll spell it out step by step. Perhaps you could confirm your agreement of each step or if you disagree explain why.
1) Airside is UK territory under UK jurisdiction not international territory.
2) Rules affecting air travel are defined in the Tokyo Convention
3) Airlines are fined heavily by the UK Government if people arrive on their services without proper passports and visas (if required), so it rarely happens that they do.
4) People quite often arrive at LHR with appropriate visas but claim asylum on arrival - these people are not relevant to our discussion.
5) People transitting through LHR never clearing airside are also irrelevant to our discussion
6) The small number of people who arrive at LHR without visas then split into two categories
6(a) Those seeking asylum can make their claim. They enter the asylum system
6(b) Those not seeking asylum can be deported back to where they started their journey from and in most cases under Tokyo, the airline is forced to carry them and the originating country forced to accept them back
7) Those claiming asylum in 6(a) will be subject to an initial assessment. If their claim is credible they move to the main asylum system (see 12), if not they move to 6(b)
8) Those arriving by ferry at Dover are subject to almost exactly the same process as above. Again there are very few of those
9) Those arriving by small boat at Dover are almost all seeking asylum
10) They are subject to an initial assessment similar to (7). If they pass the credibility test, they enter the main asylum system (see 12) If they fail that initial test they are no longer asylum seekers and are liable for deportation and go on to 11).
11) If there is a return agreement in place (eg with Albania) they can be deported to say Albania more or less immediately
If there is no return agreement, it gets a little more difficult - there is no Tokyo equivalent for these people and they can only be deported with the consent of the receiving country.
12) Having passed there initial assessment in point 7) or point 10), the claimant then begins the normal investigation route into their claim during which the claimant has to wait , usually in Govt provided accommodation until we rule on his case etc.
As I understand Steppenwolf's scheme, he mistakenly believes that people airside are not in the UK and therefore cannot claim asylum in the UK and therefore if we designated Dover, a corridor and Manston as not in the UK we could stop anyone claiming asylum here and simply forcibly deport them back to say Iraq whether Iraq likes it or not. That is nonsense
If there is anything here you regard as erroneous please could you point out specifically where.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 15, 2024 13:47:46 GMT
dappy, I'm not here to correct your homework, or to engage in a training exercise on how to suck eggs, however I would say your Part 1 (Airside) is broadly correct, but your Part II ('Seaside') does not take account of the inadmissibility provisions in recent legislation intended to deal with (almost all) arrivals by small boat who seek to claim asylum but who are deemed inadmissible under the rules pertaining to those with 'a connection to a safe country'. Update your process to reflect those changes and I'll take a closer look at it. Here is the internal Home Office guidance on 'Inadmissibility' to get you started. www.gov.uk/government/publications/inadmissibility-third-country-cases/inadmissibility-safe-third-country-cases-accessible |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 15, 2024 14:11:23 GMT
The new (currently untested) rules apply to all people seeking asylum Dan whether they arrive by small boat, aircraft or in the back of a lorry. You are welcome to spell out why you think they make a difference. It is very noticeable that you have pulled away from explaining any flaws in my explanation of why Steppenwolf's plan doesn't work. I suspect the penny has dropped.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 15, 2024 16:27:31 GMT
The new rules do not apply to all asylum seekers, only those who arrive as 'irregular entrants' i.e. clandestinely by small boat, lorry or other such means (e.g. private plane or car). They also apply to anyone attempting to enter at a regular port (eg Heathrow) using false documents or similar deceptions.
Asylum claimants who have arrived legally, that is, on a student visa say or a tourist or business visa (overstayer) will have their claims decided as before.
As it is today, apart from the fact that they have no asylum claim registered, entrants being considered as or deemed already inadmissible, are treated little differently from 'regular' claimants. They receive the same support and accommodation and form part of the same 'flow' (as opposed to 'legacy') backlog as those expecting to receive a decision eventually.
This seems to me a great mistake since it creates an expectation that, sooner or later, another amnesty will come along and 'inadmissibles' will have their claims registered if only after a period in limbo. It is in dealing with this cohort that a 'Seaside' holding facility could come into play. Illegal entrants with inadmissible asylum claims should be held there until they either voluntarily self-deport or are accepted by a third country. To have them running around loose in the community is a great folly in my view and no good can come of it.
I don't have current figures for the numbers awaiting a final decision on whether their claim is inadmissible but understand that as of September 2023 there were around 26,000 such cases. It's likely to be rather more by now.
That's why I say that the principal issue with a 'Seaside' solution is scalability; as of now around eight Manston-sized facilities would be needed, probably more in the future unless the deterrent aspect kicks in or more willing third countries can be signed up.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 15, 2024 16:57:33 GMT
If I understand you right, you are advocating holding people to come here to claim asylum in some form of detention centre. I dont agree with you but lets ignore that detail.
What difference does in make in your mind whether these detention centres. lets say for the sake of argument at Manston, are accessed via a corridor from Dover to Manston all not designated as UK land ("seaside") rather than simply built in Manston on UK soil.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 15, 2024 17:37:16 GMT
It doesn't make any difference really, but I'd consider such holding facilities as analogous to MoD sites with their own regulations about access, trespass, conduct and security arrangements. The important thing is everybody recognises and understands that the inmates have not been admitted to the UK so different rules apply. They are being detained in an extra-territorial location (just like 'airside').
What is your principal objection to accommodating asylum seekers in general (not just 'inadmissibles') in secure facilities, segregated from the general population?
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 15, 2024 18:05:07 GMT
Sorry Dan. Playground insults to one side, normally while I disagree with your views, they are reasonably coherent.
It “doesn’t make any difference really” whether your detention centres are on some sort of extra-territorial territory or simply on normal UK soil but it’s apparently really important anyway. Eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 16, 2024 8:27:55 GMT
The importance lies in there being a general understanding on all sides, but especially within the legal profession and the migrant rights industry, that the inmates of a 'Seaside' holding facility have not been admitted into the UK and are unlikely ever to be so.
Btw, I still await your response to:
"What is your principal objection to accommodating asylum seekers in general (not just 'inadmissibles') in secure facilities, segregated from the general population?"
|
|
