|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 16, 2024 8:32:38 GMT
The broad point is that people who arrive by air are NOT automatically let into the country. They remain in a secure area until they're either let in by border control or denied entry. If they're denied entry they're returned on the next flight to wherever they came from.
The difference with the boat people is that they're just routinely let in when none of them have the required documentation. That's crazy. We know exactly where they came from so they should be detained until they can be returned there (to France usually). The means of return is unimportant. The principle is exactly the same as for air passengers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 16, 2024 9:03:31 GMT
It is indeed crazy that people who are deemed to be illegal entrants in law are simply let in and then accommodated and supported at taxpayer expense.
They might as well sack all the immigration officers at Heathrow and let anyone just swan in and out.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Feb 16, 2024 11:52:31 GMT
The broad point is that people who arrive by air are NOT automatically let into the country. They remain in a secure area until they're either let in by border control or denied entry. If they're denied entry they're returned on the next flight to wherever they came from. The difference with the boat people is that they're just routinely let in when none of them have the required documentation. That's crazy. We know exactly where they came from so they should be detained until they can be returned there (to France usually). The means of return is unimportant. The principle is exactly the same as for air passengers. Ah Steppenwolf, the old debating trick of trying to fall back to a “broad point” when your specific point has imploded! I haven’t seen anyone try that for a while. Thank you sir. You gave me a little laugh if nothing else. As we have identified your scheme doesn’t work - airside is UK territory, access from abroad is easily controllable, there are international treaties governing the few that get through and return don’t apply to those seeking asylum. Even Dan has now understood that “seaside” in practise would achieve nothing (apart from his rather lame “sending out a message” facesaver). Probably best to let this one drop now. Dan I did notice your desire to open up another front in the interminable asylum debate. Not sure I have the time or inclination at the moment. Maybe in a few days on another thread? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 16, 2024 12:10:35 GMT
On the contrary, I have not said that 'Seaside' holding facilities would achieve nothing, despite your attempt at trivialising my statements.
I understand that you don't wish to respond to my question.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 17, 2024 8:09:51 GMT
The broad point is that people who arrive by air are NOT automatically let into the country. They remain in a secure area until they're either let in by border control or denied entry. If they're denied entry they're returned on the next flight to wherever they came from. The difference with the boat people is that they're just routinely let in when none of them have the required documentation. That's crazy. We know exactly where they came from so they should be detained until they can be returned there (to France usually). The means of return is unimportant. The principle is exactly the same as for air passengers. Ah Steppenwolf, the old debating trick of trying to fall back to a “broad point” when your specific point has imploded! I haven’t seen anyone try that for a while. Thank you sir. You gave me a little laugh if nothing else. As we have identified your scheme doesn’t work - airside is UK territory, access from abroad is easily controllable, there are international treaties governing the few that get through and return don’t apply to those seeking asylum. Even Dan has now understood that “seaside” in practise would achieve nothing (apart from his rather lame “sending out a message” facesaver). Probably best to let this one drop now. Dan I did notice your desire to open up another front in the interminable asylum debate. Not sure I have the time or inclination at the moment. Maybe in a few days on another thread? And I notice your old debating trick of trying to claim that you've dismissed an opponents argument when you have done no such thing. As for the "broad point" I was making, it's pretty obvious really - if you stand back and look at the big picture. Your problem is the old "can't see the wood for the trees". I was simply musing on why it's incredibly difficult to illegally enter this country by air but dead simple by dinghy. And the basic reason is because air travelers don't get into the country until their documents have been checked - and if they're invalid they're immediately returned. So why not extend that principle to boats. It's very easy and won't break international law because it's following an established principle. All that's required is the political will for the govt to actually do it. But spare me your condescending drivel dopy. You think you're clever but sadly you're not. |
|
