Why don’t we use the military re stop the boats?

Locals abroad managed to turn a dinghy round before pushing it back out to sea-
Not sure how far they got😳

Why don’t we use the military to stop the boats?

It is very simple. It would be illegal under international law.

First:

The 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees

www.unhcr.org/media/1951-refugee-convention-and-1967-protocol-relating-status-refugees

plus

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ratified in 1994,and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR Convention), enacted in 1985 - which jointly state first of all that people at sea legally have to be intercepted if they are found to be "in danger of being lost."

In other words, people on migrant boats can by definition not be left to their own devices in what is one of the world's busiest shipping lanes and therefore incredibly dangerous to navigate.

Whether it is a border patrol vessel, a ferry or a cruise ship, a rescue operation then has to be coordinated and launched. Often, maritime authorities will take over and take the lead in saving these lives at sea.

These conventions further stipulate that those picked up at sea are not allowed to be taken to any other country other than that of the flag of the ship which rescued them. The only exception to this rule is when there is clear permission to take those rescued to another country, such as France.

In the example of the UK, this would mean that after each interception, British boats would have to bring the people they saved at sea back to Britain -- or contact French authorities to request returning the migrants there in every single instance.

If, on the other hand, a French patrol boat intercepts migrants on a dinghy, they are equally bound by law to take them back to France - unless they have good reason to contact British authorities and request that they take them over.

However, the two countries could, in theory, also strike an agreement that would allow all migrants intercepted at sea by British vessels to be returned to France under a blanket deal.

However, no such deal exists between the United Kingdom and France.

The French government strongly protested against a British proposition in 2021 of using the British Navy to force migrant boats to turn around in the English Channel and head back in the direction of France.

France stressed at the time this suggestion, which had been floated by Boris Johnson, would be in direct breach of the aforementioned stipulations of international maritime law.

Since Britain's departure from the European Union in 2020, any major cooperation or rapprochement on immigration issues between the UK and France has been an elusive idea. The two nations have signed agreements to work together to stop boats from leaving in the first place, but if they're in the open sea, these deals no longer apply.

So sending migrants back to France at sea is simply not a concept that would ever be allowed under international law.

www.infomigrants.net/en/post/60049/channel-crossings-why-britain-cannot-simply-send-back-migrants

The recent treaty with France: Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the French Republic on the Prevention of Dangerous Journeys is at least a step towards working together and might act as a deterrent for those without a strong claim for asylum in the UK.

The Channel is one of the busiest shipping lanes - how would you expect “ the military” to stop small dinghies? Shoot at them? What about those sailing round in their yachts from the Isle of Wight? Would they be targeted? Remember Tice claiming folks in a yacht race were refugees. The reason border force round them up is to control them - otherwise they'd just land and disappear ( as many have already done) . I think national digital ID cards is one way to sort out illegals.

It’s my understanding action of this type breaks both International and Maritime Law, I could be wrong.

In this shouty exchange between Sky’s Trevor Phillips and Richard Tice (specifically at one minute into the clip), the latter says that under Reform the Royal Navy would only be deployed in the Channel to observe - which Phillips points out would be rather a waste of resources.

news.sky.com/video/reform-uks-richard-tice-weve-always-suggested-lawful-peaceful-protest-13422142

Operation Isotrope in 2022 and why is didn’t work:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Isotrope

Defence Minister James Heappey … stated that the Royal Navy would not be involved in the use of controversial pushback tactics nor interdiction (naval operations that aim to delay, disrupt, or destroy “enemy” forces).

Effectively, the Royal Navy ended up as an escort service brings asylum seekers safely to UK land.

Retired Vice Admiral and former head of the Border Force Charles Montgomery criticised the government's strategy, stating that Royal Navy ships would be a "honeypot" for migrants and would make crossings attractive. … It also criticised the government for "overstretching" the Royal Navy's finite resources. It added that the MOD had "little to gain and much to lose" out of its involvement.

In an interview with France 3, Mayor of Calais Natacha Bouchart described the British government's deployment of the Royal Navy as a "declaration of maritime war" which would prolong her city's economic suffering and worsen the humanitarian situation.

Thanks PaynesGrey 👍

I do think that some people don't really want to try to understand complex situations though, unfortunately.

Please, please, please, could Gransnetters stop calling people "illegals:?
🙏

Who was it who claimed he would stop the war in the Ukraine and the Israeli conflict within two weeks if he were to be elected as POTUS? I think his name began with a 'T'.

NotSpaghetti

Please, please, please, could Gransnetters stop calling people "illegals:?
🙏

If they are trying to come in illegally - then what other name do you suggest for us to differentiate between those who have asked our permission to move into our country v. those who don't care whether they have our permission...as they intend to force their way in anyway?

Why don’t you ignore international law then ? What are they going to do about it - bomb you ? Ridiculous. I always thought a navy was supposed to guard against foreign invasions. Clearly not in this case. Weak .

Thank you NS.

This has been explained before but here goes again:

Unless coming to the UK under a formal resettlement scheme e.g. the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS), which is now closed, there is no way to claim asylum in the UK until reaching UK land.

Read the UN Convention, Cariad.

It clearly stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules.

(Exemptions: In particular, the Convention does not apply to those for whom there are serious reasons for considering that they have committed war crimes or crimes against humanity, serious non-political crimes, or are guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.)

By arriving on UK land and claiming asylum, the person is asking for permission. Do you not see that?

How does The Illegal Migrant Act 2023 apply?

There is a world of difference between say an Afghan woman coming here without pre-asking and saying "I want to claim asylum - now that I've already got here" - because we all know just how Afghan women are treated in their own country and so can see by definition that she would be genuine on the one hand

v. yet another man from an African country who just wants our higher standard of living and decides to barge in first and then make out he's claiming to be a genuine asylum seeker second (having destroyed his passport deliberately en route and maybe lying about his age etc).

Prior to that act, asylum seekers arriving by boat were not classified as "illegal" as explained so so many times there are few if any legal routes now and someone has to actually have their feet on British soil to claim asylum. It's a catch 22 situation.

Doesn't Australia 'turn them back'?
How do they get away with it if its against international law?

Cue for asking AI (Chat GPT) what terms to use.

It came up with what it describes as "neutral/legalistic" terms and listed:

- irregular migrant
- undocumented migrant
- inadmissible entrant

I can't see that it makes any difference personally as to just which of the four terms we use.

CariadAgain
People are not ‘illegal.’ Only actions they take can be illegal.

If you don't pay for parking are you an illegal?
If your child has an unauthorised absence from school are they an illegal?

This is horrible and dehumanising language.

If the police, border agency, and coast guard cannot stop them then what use is the army?

The army could only be used once these people have landed - and once they have landed they are entitled to appeal for refugee and asylum status.

I think much more use should be made of the short term visa system. All legal immigrants should have 5 year extendable in some cases 10 year visas and be expected to return home. Many of them, espcially in the medical profession come from poorer countries. 5/10 years here would enable us to both benefit from their skills and give them access to learn skille that they can take these skills home with them. Higher wages her will also enable them to save and take that back home with them to enable them to re-estblish themselves in their own country.

I think all illegal arrivals in this country should be held in camps with good facilities and communications and teams of Home Office staff working on site to examine their right to claim assylum or refugee status, that way those who do not qualify can quickly be sent back where they came from, either France r their home country. Those accepted should be given 5/10 year visas and helped into work where their skills are needed.

foxie48

Prior to that act, asylum seekers arriving by boat were not classified as "illegal" as explained so so many times there are few if any legal routes now and someone has to actually have their feet on British soil to claim asylum. It's a catch 22 situation.

I understand that foxie48 I was just wondering how that act worked alongside what paynesgrey posted.

The legality of the The Illegal Migration Act 2023 is contested because is breaches the UN Convention.

Although the Act received Royal Assent on 20 July 2023, the majority of its provisions have not been brought into force and are not currently being enforced. While the Act is law, key sections such as the duty to remove individuals deemed to have arrived in the UK illegally have not been implemented.

Remember that the Tory government also passed The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill claiming that Rwanda was a safe country even though the UK Supreme Court had already said that it was not a safe country to which asylum seekers could be removed. It ruled that Rwanda posed a risk of returning refugees to countries where they could face persecution. This is known as refoulement which is illegal under the UN Convention.

By arriving on UK land and claiming asylum, the person is asking for permission. Do you not see that?

By doing that, they act illegally.

By doing what? Asking for leave to stay?

Read the UN Convention. I have already quoted the relevant text. It says:

refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules.

Why don’t you ignore international law then ?

Because nann8, the UK is better than that.

Far from being ‘weak’, that makes us strong!

When I saw the question my first thought was….Because we are an island!

PaynesGrey

By doing what? Asking for leave to stay?

Read the UN Convention. I have already quoted the relevant text. It says:

*refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules.*

I'm puzzled at trying to (mis) use temporary "legal language" (which will probably change soon) to "normal language".

To me - it feels like one of my neighbours having found a handy few legalistic words to use as an excuse for breaking into my garden and expecting me to accept it (ie just because they've used the right form of words). Whereas we all know that it is my garden/part of my home and you can use whatever pretty/fashionable/etc/etc form of words you choose to try and justify the fact they didn't ask my permission before entering my garden. Reason being because it's mine end of and if anyone said "Tough - we're going to trespass in anyway" = try asking the bad neighbours I've had/got here and they'd tell you that I'm very clear it's mine and I impose few restrictions on myself as to what I do to get them back out again - because it is mine. Yep....there have been some blazing rows/solicitors letters/you name it = because I know it's mine and I expect that to be respected.

Why would I regard my country any differently - just because someone (on one side of the equation) has temporarily got some form of words that suits them to try and claim they can come in regardless? They and I both know - it's mine and it ain't theirs and they should be taking account of that.

I know it was pretty obvious that, as soon as the Internet became commonplace, that "Uncle Tom Cobbler and all" might well decide to break in and assume they could have what they liked from our country. So I've been anticipating this for decades.....but that does not mean I'm going to accept it....

A temporary "form of words" is just that....temporary....