Priti Patel the new Home Sec wants to hang crims, lots of them.

Whilst I'm not blind to the humanitarian issues, surely it's obvious that we encourage the trafficking gangs by collecting their clients for them.

That's why I said we collect them, then immediately bundle them direct to a processing centre overseas, and once they realise they won't make it, then they'll realise there's no point in trying.

It's what the Australians did with their boat migrant problem, and its worked.
 
That's why I said we collect them, then immediately bundle them direct to a processing centre overseas, and once they realise they won't make it, then they'll realise there's no point in trying.
Which requires :

1. An agreement with an overseas country to host said centre (nb Albania a very bad idea) and presumably funding for it.
2. Some form of legal injunction that prevents said migrants immediately claiming asylum (hint - can of worms under ECHR)
3. The ability to prevent the immigration industry lawyers from filing endless appeals etc

None of which guarantees that the UK Supreme court won't find against HMG and force them to reverse the policy and pay compensayshun (think Windrush, but worse).

Until the law is changed to ensure watertight powers of detention and removal, all you're doing is funding the legal industry to argue - and potentially storing up huge liabilities in the future.
 

clanky

War Hero
Which requires :

1. An agreement with an overseas country to host said centre (nb Albania a very bad idea) and presumably funding for it.
2. Some form of legal injunction that prevents said migrants immediately claiming asylum (hint - can of worms under ECHR)
3. The ability to prevent the immigration industry lawyers from filing endless appeals etc

None of which guarantees that the UK Supreme court won't find against HMG and force them to reverse the policy and pay compensayshun (think Windrush, but worse).

Until the law is changed to ensure watertight powers of detention and removal, all you're doing is funding the legal industry to argue - and potentially storing up huge liabilities in the future.
But it would at least provide a solution to the hypalon access problem. Once it becomes known that an attempted channel crossing is only going to get you to a 3rd country at best, it going to be a lot harder for the smugglers to sell tickets. Plus it allows the BF/RNLI to continue operating their ferry service. Doubles all round!
 
Which requires :

1. An agreement with an overseas country to host said centre (nb Albania a very bad idea) and presumably funding for it.
2. Some form of legal injunction that prevents said migrants immediately claiming asylum (hint - can of worms under ECHR)
3. The ability to prevent the immigration industry lawyers from filing endless appeals etc

None of which guarantees that the UK Supreme court won't find against HMG and force them to reverse the policy and pay compensayshun (think Windrush, but worse).

Until the law is changed to ensure watertight powers of detention and removal, all you're doing is funding the legal industry to argue - and potentially storing up huge liabilities in the future.

Not one of which is a major problem.

1: Ho there third world nation (poss in Africa, hell maybe even same location as the Aus set up?), we'll pay you £100 for each migrant we're allowed to house on your soil. They'll not be gated, so imagine all the possibilities for boosting the local economy you'll have as well, including new employment opportunities

Before anyone starts twitching, £100 per head is the equivalent of about 2.5 weeks of payments to an Asylum seeker. They get near enough £40 per week:

Which works in our favour really, it very quickly becomes financially rewarding to HMG to find another solution, other than to keep paying them.

Equally, if its still a problem, there's a few chunks of land that no one wants to claim. The biggest one is, I think, Bir Tawil, which is about 800 Sq.miles on the Egypt Sudan border. Both countries say it belongs to the other.

2: The ECHR? You mean this one:
8. Expulsion to “safe” countries
As regards the material scope of both Conventions it is well settled that
neither provides for a right to be granted asylum but only to be protected

from “refoulement”. Article 33 (1) of the Geneva Convention, in parallel to
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, establishes only

the principle of non-refoulement, which requires Contracting States to
refrain from expelling or returning refugees to territories where their lives

or freedom would be threatened.97 It follows that there is, in principle, no
prohibition on the return of a refugee to a country in which he will be safe,

however reluctant he may be to go there.98 It is from this concept that the
widespread practice has developed of returning refugees to the territories

of states through which they passed to reach the country where they

applied for asylum. Such states are often referred to as countries of “first

asylum” or as “safe third countries.”
Taken from here:

No where does my suggested course of action fall foul, and is well within those boundaries.

3: There's always chancers, and short of going all Roman on them and branding them on the forehead with a K, there's not much that can be done, apart from apply existing protections against such.
However, I suspect the new immigration bill is aimed at sorting these problems out.
 
Which requires :

1. An agreement with an overseas country to host said centre (nb Albania a very bad idea) and presumably funding for it.
2. Some form of legal injunction that prevents said migrants immediately claiming asylum (hint - can of worms under ECHR)
3. The ability to prevent the immigration industry lawyers from filing endless appeals etc

None of which guarantees that the UK Supreme court won't find against HMG and force them to reverse the policy and pay compensayshun (think Windrush, but worse).

Until the law is changed to ensure watertight powers of detention and removal, all you're doing is funding the legal industry to argue - and potentially storing up huge liabilities in the future.
plus the sea voyage from Indonesia taking longer & requiring bigger boats than zipping across the channel makes it far easier for the Australians to detect & intercept them
 

endure

GCM
In that case you should know better.
I know the law and the rules and regs which are exactly as I've laid out here on a number of occasions. The fact that you may disagree with them isn't really relevant to the fact that they exist.
 
I know the law and the rules and regs which are exactly as I've laid out here on a number of occasions. The fact that you may disagree with them isn't really relevant to the fact that they exist.
Yes we know you know the law.
What we are saying is that in this case the law has to be changed as it is being misused by criminals.
 

endure

GCM
Yes we know you know the law.
What we are saying is that in this case the law has to be changed as it is being misused by criminals.
I don't disagree with you. The problem with trying to change SOLAS is that you have to persuade the 164 countries who are signatories to do so.
 
That's why I said we collect them, then immediately bundle them direct to a processing centre overseas, and once they realise they won't make it, then they'll realise there's no point in trying.

It's what the Australians did with their boat migrant problem, and its worked.
Just one slight flaw. Where overseas? Which country will be willing to take them?
I think they've already suggested Turkey who say they are full with the EU lot, Albania has said no chance.

Unless we have some friendly country that would be willing to take them, process them, house them, feed them and so on and at what cost? I think I read the Albanian solution would have been 100k per person and still they "angrily" said on yer bike.

Suggestions?
 
Just one slight flaw. Where overseas? Which country will be willing to take them?
I think they've already suggested Turkey who say they are full with the EU lot, Albania has said no chance.

Unless we have some friendly country that would be willing to take them, process them, house them, feed them and so on and at what cost? I think I read the Albanian solution would have been 100k per person and still they "angrily" said on yer bike.

Suggestions?

As I said, somewhere in Africa. It was suggested a little while ago, such as a joint centre in Rwanda with the Danes.
Or I found you a place where no side wants. Fine, we'll anex it! Ours now (sticks in flag).
 
I know the law and the rules and regs which are exactly as I've laid out here on a number of occasions. The fact that you may disagree with them isn't really relevant to the fact that they exist.

I disagree with your interpretation of them: in summary, you are aiding a vessel in distress that is not in distress.
 

Latest Threads

Top