Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Cross Channel Migrant Issue

  • Thread starter Deleted 3147
  • Start date
It would seem that the gentlemen from Nigeria that were so kindly landed by the SBS after questioning will now doubt by now have been informed of their ‘rights’.

 

syrup

LE
It would seem that the gentlemen from Nigeria that were so kindly landed by the SBS after questioning will now doubt by now have been informed of their ‘rights’.



I believe they have been released on bail into the care of the border force.
Of course precedence was set by the Afghan who hijacked an airliner and after surrendering to THEM took HMG to court and were allowed to stay indefinitely.
 
Last edited:
It means you can understand what is covered by statute (treaty) and what is by consent (common practice) - following on your comments about 'which International Law'.

Last week, a group of media outlets — including investigative site Bellingcat — published detailed reporting alleging Frontex involvement in so-called pushback operations at the Greek-Turkish maritime border, in which refugees and migrants are prevented from reaching EU soil or are forced out of EU waters. Such pushbacks violate international law.


Would you be kind enough to post a link to the the International Law ( whether by treaty or consent ) that is violated by not allowing Illegal Migrants to reach your shores or enter your Sovereign waters.

If you are unable to do so, I would be grateful if you could zip it.
 
Man arrested over the deaths of Iranian Kurd family in Channel sinking.

An article in the Guardian about an Iranian Kurd people smuggler who has been arrested on suspcion of being in charge of the boat that sank in the channel causing the death of the Iranian Kurdish family. The last paragraph is interesting:

In the UK, the deaths have led to renewed calls for the government to abandon its hardline approach to asylum seekers and expand or create safe and legal routes for people fleeing torture and death to travel to the UK and claim asylum.

A call for the government to "abandon its hardline approach". A call by the usual suspects, NGO's, human rights lawyers etc, to the government to abandon its lawful attempts to secure its borders.

Even if the government did create safe and legal routes for people fleeing torture and death to travel to the UK and claim asylum it would not apply to the deceased family as they were doing neither as they were economic migrants. And as it has been pointed out many times on arrse, nobody is fleeing death and torture in France.
 
Man arrested over the deaths of Iranian Kurd family in Channel sinking.

An article in the Guardian about an Iranian Kurd people smuggler who has been arrested on suspcion of being in charge of the boat that sank in the channel causing the death of the Iranian Kurdish family. The last paragraph is interesting:

In the UK, the deaths have led to renewed calls for the government to abandon its hardline approach to asylum seekers and expand or create safe and legal routes for people fleeing torture and death to travel to the UK and claim asylum.

A call for the government to "abandon its hardline approach". A call by the usual suspects, NGO's, human rights lawyers etc, to the government to abandon its lawful attempts to secure its borders.

Even if the government did create safe and legal routes for people fleeing torture and death to travel to the UK and claim asylum it would not apply to the deceased family as they were doing neither as they were economic migrants. And as it has been pointed out many times on arrse, nobody is fleeing death and torture in France.
Creating 'safe and legal routes' is (probably) the easy bit. How many should be allowed to use them and at which end of the route is the 'go/no go' decided?
 

Silksheen

Swinger
Can I suggest a bounty for every illegal you shop to the Border Force , increased if you deliver them to a secure facility yourself , with bonus points if they are on a watch list and have gone off the radar or if they have been engaged in radical islamist activity ?
We could even make TV programmes about it , like Dog the Bounty Hunter .

I was thinking more along the lines of this TV Show.

 

Would you be kind enough to post a link to the the International Law ( whether by treaty or consent ) that is violated by not allowing Illegal Migrants to reach your shores or enter your Sovereign waters.

If you are unable to do so, I would be grateful if you could zip it.
You demonstrated understandable ignorance about what international law is and I provided you an explanation.

You could start by looking at the UN Convention on the Status of a Refugee (1951). As the UK ratified this treaty, is is part of domestic law.

I'm not defending the irregular migrants and I'm not here to give a legal opinion on them. As I've pointed out in earlier posts, they knowingly and willingly engage in criminal enterprise to get to the UK . But once they are on UK soil they can claim asylum.
 
You could start by looking at the UN Convention on the Status of a Refugee (1951). As the UK ratified this treaty, is is part of domestic law.

This one ?

No idea, but I will give you my barebones plans starter for 10.

1. Withdraw from the UK convention on Refugees ( It is outdated and not fit for purpose )

The 1951 UN Convention on Refugees does not apply to law breaking, economic migrants, illegally trying to enter other Countries.

So why would I want to look at it ?

I'm not defending the irregular migrants and I'm not here to give a legal opinion on them.

By trying to lump them in with Refugees ( as in the UN 1951 Convention ) that is exactly what you are trying to do.
 
This one ?



The 1951 UN Convention on Refugees does not apply to law breaking, economic migrants, illegally trying to enter other Countries.

So why would I want to look at it ?



By trying to lump them in with Refugees ( as in the UN 1951 Convention ) that is exactly what you are trying to do.
If you apply for asylum you are seeking refugee status; that is irrespective of how you got to the UK, under the law as it stands.
 
If you apply for asylum you are seeking refugee status; that is irrespective of how you got to the UK, under the law as it stands.

Before I really let rip at you, I'll have one more attempt.

Here is the document you referred to.......


........ Could you copy and paste the relevant Chapter that deals with law breaking, Illegal economic migrants.

Just because wet, limp lettuce leaves from the meeja / lefties / certain NGO's love to wail Refugee and Asylum Seeker does not make it true.

People traffickers are luring would-be Iranian migrants towards Britain with the promise of plentiful high-paying jobs, a warm welcome from non-racist locals and good weather.

The gangs openly advertise routes to Europe along with fake or stolen passports for sale on Instagram and other social media sites, holding up Britain as a prize destination.


Migrants - Not Refugees and not Asylum seekers - 1951 UN Convention on Refugees does not apply.

Wipe your chin and dry your eyes.
 
Before I really let rip at you, I'll have one more attempt.

Here is the document you referred to.......


........ Could you copy and paste the relevant Chapter that deals with law breaking, Illegal economic migrants.

Just because wet, limp lettuce leaves from the meeja / lefties / certain NGO's love to wail Refugee and Asylum Seeker does not make it true.




Migrants - Not Refugees and not Asylum seekers - 1951 UN Convention on Refugees does not apply.

Wipe your chin and dry your eyes.

The problem is that despite what the convention says about economic migrants, we are not allowed to prevent them from claiming for asylum on even the most spurious of grounds.

Their claim can be assessed and rejected but there is still the problem of removability. We do not send people back to Iran, for example, because of the multiple human right violations committed by the Iranian regime. Even if we derogated from the 1951 and 1954 conventions in their entirety, we would still have the problem of removability because I highly doubt that the Iranian regime would be willing to take their citizens back.
 
The problem is that despite what the convention says about economic migrants, we are not allowed to prevent them from claiming for asylum on even the most spurious of grounds.

Again - This is why I previously, on at least 2 occasions, said

Portree Kid said:
No idea, but I will give you my barebones plans starter for 10.

1. Withdraw from the UK convention on Refugees ( It is outdated and not fit for purpose )

There is nothing stopping the UK rejoining it once it has been re-written, brought up to date and made fit for purpose.

At the very least, the UK could say, with all the sh!t that is going on, we are currently suspending the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees.

It really isn't that difficult.

Even if we derogated from the 1951 and 1954 conventions in their entirety, we would still have the problem of removability because I highly doubt that the Iranian regime would be willing to take their citizens back.

The thread is about cross channel migration. Return to point of departure, no need to send then to Iran.
 
Before I really let rip at you, I'll have one more attempt.

Here is the document you referred to.......


........ Could you copy and paste the relevant Chapter that deals with law breaking, Illegal economic migrants.

Just because wet, limp lettuce leaves from the meeja / lefties / certain NGO's love to wail Refugee and Asylum Seeker does not make it true.




Migrants - Not Refugees and not Asylum seekers - 1951 UN Convention on Refugees does not apply.

Wipe your chin and dry your eyes.
If you think the UK should derrogate the Treaty, why don't you write to your MP or hold a protest, rather than trying to pathetically score points on here?
 
If you think the UK should derrogate the Treaty, why don't you write to your MP or hold a protest, rather than trying to pathetically score points on here?

Is that the best you can come up with ?

Score points ? You really are batsh!t mental, bordering on BagC0ck proportions
 
Again - This is why I previously, on at least 2 occasions, said



There is nothing stopping the UK rejoining it once it has been re-written, brought up to date and made fit for purpose.

At the very least, the UK could say, with all the sh!t that is going on, we are currently suspending the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees.

It really isn't that difficult.



The thread is about cross channel migration. Return to point of departure, no need to send then to Iran.

I am far from convinced that the French would take them either. Personally, I would link visas to illegal migrants i.e. if you won't take your people back, your visa allocation gets cut. That would concentrate minds very rapidly.
 
That really was a precedent setting event.

How better to advertise, 'just step ashore and you’ve won'.

Wonder if that would apply to those Zimbos of British descent who are currently stuck there with no future and no prospects.
 
I am far from convinced that the French would take them either.

Me neither, and I would not trust the French as far as I could throw them.

Nae return to senders - Nae fishing, simples.

Start issuing massive fines to Eurotunnel / Transport companies / haulage companies / ferry companies / tour companies for every Illegal caught - Fines will end when your Government starts to take them back.

This has been going on since Sangatte in the 80's at least. It is way past time to start thinking outside the box.

Personally, I would link visas to illegal migrants i.e. if you won't take your people back, your visa allocation gets cut. That would concentrate minds very rapidly.

Although I wont disagree with you on this one.

The one glaring issue that I see with it - It ain't going to work too well when the Illegals are all actively destroying whatever paperwork that they may, or may not had.
 

Latest Threads

Top