Why do Asylum Seekers cross the channel on small boats

I agree with you, Iam64.

Good article from freemovement debunking the myth that asylum seekers must stop in the first safe country.

freemovement.org.uk/are-refugees-obliged-to-claim-asylum-in-the-first-safe-country-they-reach/

The Ukraine, Poland, Moldova example explains it very clearly.

Also, reminding us that the UK was once part of the Dublin agreement ...

Final paragraph from the article:

So, to sum up, there is no obligation on refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, although many in fact do. The United Kingdom receives a tiny number of refugees compared to other countries in the EU and beyond. There are multiple reasons why refugees might want to move on from refugee camps or travel to find family members or better prospects. If they do so, and would face a well founded fear of being persecuted in their home country, they are still refugees. There is a system within the EU called the Dublin system under which refugees can be sent back to their point of entry to the EU to have their asylum claims processed there. But the United Kingdom lost access to that system due to Brexit and has not been able to come up with a functioning replacement.

'Ignoring reality' comes down to a matter of opinion at to what reality is Iam64. Many of us will not be here in 10 or 20 years time to see the results of your reality. It's our children and grandchildren who will have to deal with the future of our country, and keep living with this endless stream of new arrivals taking everything we can give them.

Thanks for the articles Marrion, informative straightforward helpful reading. Would recommend for everyone especially those who seem to believe that we have more refugees than anywhere else. We don’t.

Sorry my phone has changed your name Maerion.

Chestnut, absolutely bang on! In my previous response I was referring to illegal immigration. Some posters seem to get muddled and think I am referring to any kind of immigration!

Chestnut

'Ignoring reality' comes down to a matter of opinion at to what reality is Iam64. Many of us will not be here in 10 or 20 years time to see the results of your reality. It's our children and grandchildren who will have to deal with the future of our country, and keep living with this endless stream of new arrivals taking everything we can give them.

Absolutely right.

Whatever the rights or wrongs, the stark fact remains that we do not have nearly enough decent, affordable housing for those already here, both natives and migrants.

Witzend did you miss the 1.5 million new homes policy- Angela Rayner etc? Also by forcing pensioners to downsize by increasing heating costs, and abolishing WFA for the just about managing, more family houses should come onto the market.

Think this has been said many times but those who arrive as asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants because there is no opportunity to claim asylum anywhere other than here in this country, in person and nothing
has been put in place since Brexit to make things work better.

If they apply and are subsequently denied asylum then they could be seen as illegal but until then they aren’t and can’t.
Problem is the government has been lax in assessing these people and now naturally there is a huge backlog.Because we, unlike most of Europe, don’t have ID cards people can disappear and who can blame them if applications are taking years to decide.

As for homes I put full responsibility or rather blame mrs thatcher for selling off perfectly good council homes at massive discounts to anyone who wanted to buy. These homes were not replaced, so they have been lost for ever, have been resold by those canny purchasers, often children of the tenants, at full price on the open market.

T he refugees I know are decent honourable hard working and very grateful people and I am happy to call them friends.
Heard on the radio this morning that social care and teaching, I think it was, are short of 300,000 people.
Now there’s a thought ……

silverlining48 Heard on the radio this morning that social care and teaching, I think it was, are short of 300,000 people.

So let's add to the shortage by bringing a whole load more people into the country. Keep increasing the population and you just add to the shortage of housing, schools, hospitals, GPs and so on. The BBC have just reported 38,784 'irregular' arrivals in the last year. (their words not mine). These are what were previously known as 'illegal immigrants'. A strange term, I wonder if that's a physical description.

My point was that some of these new arrivals can fill those posts.

38,000 is very few over a year spread over the whole country.
3,000 a month really is not a lot of people. Relatively speaking compared to other European countries,

silverlining48

38,000 is very few over a year spread over the whole country.
3,000 a month really is not a lot of people. Relatively speaking compared to other European countries,

We are not talking about one month or even one year. You need to realise this is endless and will never stop, so 38,000 a year is 190,000 in 5 years. Keep the ball rolling and you have 380,000 in 10 years and so on.

So GNHQ has now entered the discussion with a Channel 4 Factcheck which says:

Under British law, it’s illegal to enter the country without a visa or special permission. That means someone who reaches the UK on a small boat could face up to four years in prison. But people who make the Channel crossing are protected by international law if they claim asylum once they arrive. That means they can’t be punished while their application is being considered – and if they’re successful, they won’t be prosecuted for the way they arrived. So, arriving by small boat is only illegal if you don’t claim asylum – or if you make an asylum claim and it’s rejected.

So apparently anyone who claims asylum and is rejected is an illegal immigrant and faces up to four years in prison. Can you see a flaw in this reasoning? If we put all the unsuccessful asylum claims in prison then we end up looking after them for four years whether they are successful in their claim or not.

It seems once they’re here they don’t leave. Is this Hotel California?

In practice those that don’t get assylum are deported to their home country.
If they originated from an “unsafe” country they would get assylum, those that commit other crimes may well face prison

Don’t you think most people seeking a safe country would rather be in their own countries, living peaceful lives, with homes, jobs, friends and families, where they are comfortable, have their own culture, traditions, somewhere where they are not considered illegal? Foreign? Up to no good?

My mother was a refugee. She had to pack only what she could carry , she lost everything, her home, her family, job, lif she had known travelling in fear through war zones with no regular food or water, no security, finally ending up in a foreign country whose language she did not speak. She was 20. She never saw her beloved mother again.
She worked till she was 74 was self taught and fluent in English, knew everything about the history of her adopted country, as well as much else, loved the Queen and was proudly British to the very end of her life. A wonderful woman. A friend to many, loved and much missed. I am very proud of my mum.

Thanks HopeGransnet for some fact checks. As you will see, the legal framework means little to posters who reject it.

So you would be silver lining, what a life story and such a legacy of courage to leave with her loved ones

Iam64

Thanks HopeGransnet for some fact checks. As you will see, the legal framework means little to posters who reject it.

It's not the posters who are rejecting the legal framework but the authorities. It says failed asylum seekers are illegal immigrants and face up to four years in prison which we know doesn't happen.

“Don’t you think most people seeking a safe country would rather be in their own countries, living peaceful lives, with homes, jobs, friends and families, where they are comfortable, have their own culture, traditions, somewhere where they are not considered illegal? Foreign? Up to no good?”

If you are educated in many developing/third world countries there are no jobs available to use that education, in addition if you disagree with the government or are wrong tribe or wrong religion, prospects do not exist.

Sadly many asylum seekers are the very people whom their birth country needs to effect change. It's no accident that many go on to make huge success of their lives and their children too because you need intelligence, resourcefulness and determination to leave everything you know to start a fresh in a foreign country.

foxie48 yes so very true!

Exactly so foxie48 and the point many of us have made in response to worries that so many young men with evil intent arrive.
Chestnut, I agree with you about ludicrous long waits to process applications. I’m not sure how the new government can speed things up, or deal properly with the backlog but let’s hope their commitment succeeds. It is true though that posters regularly demand refugees should stay in the first safe country they arrive in

I didn't notice Jenrick apologising for misleading the public when it was made clear he was wholly wrong to claim asylum seekers (or 'shoppers' as he called them) have to seek asylum in the first safe country they enter.