The UK/European migrant problem

auggie rock

Old-Salt
Smuggling has always been a recreational and criminal pastime along the south coast, it’s why the Revenue and its cutters were originally created hundreds of years ago, to stop smuggling from France.
booze, fags, drugs, and now people. As a recreational pastime, ‘booze runs‘ have always been a popular thing with fast boat owners, regarded as not really criminal, same now with bringing in people.

anyone who lives in a small south coat seaside village will know all too well, the sight of fast boats heading off out into the Channel by twilights last gleaming, to return home before dawns early light.

And it’s a low risk, high reward trade. The ‘border’ at my little harbour is a small sign telling arriving boats to ring the number on it and declare themselves. Naturally, a returning cabin cruiser skipper will ring up and declare - ‘12 pax who paid me £25k in cash’.


And that’s why I laugh at the people all afroth at the very small number coming over in rubber boats, they are a trifle, they really are. They act as a very convenient distraction to occupy the outraged, the big numbers come over in real boats, and disembark at a myriad small unattended harbours along the Suffok to Hampshire coast every night. Remember, the ones in rubber boats are the desperate, the ones with money and planning book a safe seat direct on a proper boat.
Now a cynical chap might opine that’s a reason HMG doesn’t interdict the proper boat trade, it would just force thousands back into the hands of the crime gangs and their unseaworthy rubber boats, and we’d be fishing out bodies with all the attendant bad publicity.
And of course, all that money being directed into the hands of UK residents, not foreign crime gangs is good for the economy


Al Stewart said it so well, except it’s people now - it was ever thus.

The fishing boats go out across the evening water
Smuggling guns and arms across the Spanish border

When someone arrives on the beach at Dover they're an illegal immigrant. As soon as they declare they're seeking asylum their legal status changes to asylum seeker.
It doesn't, I'm afraid. They are arrested for illegal entry upon setting foot in the uk. Their asylum status doesn't alter that fact. You can be both an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant at the same time.
 
BF HURRICANE , being very naughty at 08:14hrs this morning . . . wondering off into French territorial waters !!

One can only image why ?!

Capture.PNG
 
BF VALIANT having a VERY busy day . . . .

Capture.PNG
 
It doesn't, I'm afraid. They are arrested for illegal entry upon setting foot in the uk. Their asylum status doesn't alter that fact. You can be both an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant at the same time.

You can’t criminalise anyone for claiming asylum - it’s in those treaties were are signed up to.


Under international law, people have the right to seek asylum in any country they arrive in. There's nothing to say they must seek asylum in the first safe country reached.
An EU law called Dublin III allows asylum seekers to be transferred back to the first member state they were proven to have entered.
However, the UK is no longer part of this arrangement as it has now left the European Union.
 
Q219 Andrew Gwynne: If I can move on to the Nationality and Borders Bill,
Home Secretary, one reading of the new Bill is that anyone who arrives
here in the United Kingdom illegally from a safe country would be denied
asylum or deported to that or another safe country.

I want a quick answer. How many return agreements do you actually
have in place?

Priti Patel: There is a range of returns agreements that are already in
place. I have signed removals agreements with India and Albania for
good reasons. Indians make up one of the highest numbers of people in
the United Kingdom with no legal basis to be here. There are more
foreign criminals from Albania in the UK than from anywhere else in the
world.


Page 16 of 35
 
Last edited:
Q222 Andrew Gwynne: Of course, again, there is a lot of rhetoric, but you will
be judged on your actions. What do you propose to do with the people
you cannot deport after a reasonable period of time waiting for a country
to accept them?

Priti Patel:
This is not just about waiting for a country to accept them.
As always across the Government, we will strain every sinew to remove
people. It is quite interesting off the back of the second reading of the
Nationality and Borders Bill, which is focused on removing people through
not just return agreements but through charter flights, that we are not
just speaking about failed asylum seekers. We are also speaking about
individuals who have participated in criminality and foreign national
offenders. We are—

Q223 Andrew Gwynne: Look, I get all that, but what do you propose to do
with the people you cannot deport?

Priti Patel:
This is not a case of what we will do with them. We will make
sure that when it comes to—

Q224 Andrew Gwynne: It is. If you cannot deport them, you have to do
something, Home Secretary.

Priti Patel:
That is the point. We are. The current challenges that we
face have already been spelled out in the Nationality and Borders Bill—all
the measures that thwart us, endless appeals and all sorts of issues that
come in. We will continue. We will challenge appeals as well.
It is important to reflect, if I may, Mr Gwynne, that we had a second
reading last night of our Bill, which is focused on removing people. A
substantial part of Parliament voted against that Bill, including your own
party. We will continue to remove people from the United Kingdom who
have no legal basis through our return agreements, through readmission
agreements and through charter flights, which we are running weekly.
We are removing people with no legal basis to be in the United Kingdom
and we will continue to work on that basis while seeking to negotiation
readmission agreements with—

Q225 Andrew Gwynne: With respect, Home Secretary, you have not
answered my questions and you have had 11 years to do all of that as
well.
How many additional people do you estimate the Home Office will need to
accommodate as a result? You cannot tell us what you are doing with the
people you cannot deport. They will have to be accommodated. What

assessment have you made of the numbers of people that you will need
to accommodate as a result?

page 17 of 35
 
Q230 Tim Loughton: Okay, Home Secretary, that is even more worrying
because all our focus has been on France, giving money to the French
and working with the French security forces. You are now saying that a
large increase in people coming across the Channel is coming still from
France but via Belgium, so people in Belgium think it is easier to get
across the Channel by coming into France, despite the fact that we have
given them €31.5 million last year and you are about to give them
another £54 million to do the same thing. Why will it be different this
time?
The French are not doing their part. We have taken evidence on this
Committee about interception of crafts in the water. International
maritime lawyers gave us evidence that the French authorities are
entitled within international maritime law to intercept boats in the water
and
return the passengers to French territory or to allow Border Force to
return the migrants to French territory if they are picked up in British
territorial waters
.
Yesterday a French military naval vessel escorted one
of the boats into British territorial waters and then tried to hand the
occupants over to a boat full of journalists. This is ridiculous and it makes
a mockery of it.
Just giving the French more money to carry on what they are doing badly
will not solve the problem. When will you get the French to admit they
can intercept and get them to intercept? Only that will cut off that supply
of people coming to Calais thinking they can get across the Channel when
in fact they should not be able to get across the Channel if the French do
what they are entitled to do under international law. Rant over. Is that
correct?

Priti Patel: First of all, if I may, France is intercepting more boats than
this time last year. We have to reflect upon that. That is because the
numbers are so high. The numbers are going up.

Q231 Tim Loughton: But they are ignoring it. Do you accept that the French
have the power under international maritime law to intercept boats in
French territorial waters and return them to French territory? What has

your French counterpart told you when you have said—

Priti Patel: They recognise that. They argue that they are doing their bit,
but there is an important point to differentiate here in terms of tactics at
sea. That is different to pushing boats back or saving lives at sea. They
have a different application. Paul and his team have spent a lot of time
having those operational discussions with the French. They have a
different interpretation of safety of lives at sea and the way the SOLAS
principle applies. As I have said, we are looking at all aspects in terms of
pushbacks and how we can have territorial waters—

Q232 Tim Loughton: Okay, but, Home Secretary, that is an excuse from the
French. The French having a different interpretation is the French giving
you an excuse for not doing what they are not only able to do under
international law but actually obliged to do under international law
because the occupants of those boats are committing two crimes. One is
trying to enter the UK illegally and the second is paying money to
organised crime, both of which provide grounds for those boats to be
intercepted and the occupants apprehended in as safe a way as possible
and returned to France. You are getting fobbed off with excuses.

To move on, of those people who have come in the last year to the UK
and have then applied for asylum, how many have been granted asylum
and what is the state of play for the rest . . . ?

Page 21 of 35
 
Last edited:
Priti Patel: No, if I may, all my predecessors as well have worked
vigorously through agreements, return agreements, charter flights and
deportations, much of which have been thwarted by last-minute appeals,
which I think all members of the Committee are familiar with, and also a
lot of campaigning by parliamentarians as well, who tried to stop our
removal flights and deportation flights.

We will continue but, off the back of the reforms that we are looking to
bring in, we want to create a deterrent. We cannot continue to support
what we are seeing right now,
effectively people trafficking, smugglers
and criminal gangs exploiting our asylum system to bring in economic
migrants and people who, quite frankly, are circumventing our legal
migration routes to come into our country illegally.

This is difficult. There are difficult reforms here. But the Bill has a set of
comprehensive measures that look at the entire system from an end-to-
end perspective, from illegal migration to clandestine entry, economic
migrants masquerading as asylum seekers, people smuggling,
prosecutions that we will bring in place and also—

Q226 Andrew Gwynne: Look, we get that. I was there when you introduced
the second reading debate. I heard your speech at length.

Priti Patel: If I may say so, you also voted against these measures.

Page 18 of 35
 
They are all from Kosovo silly billy
Not really bothered which part of "Greater Albania" they come from . . . just provided they all bugger-off back there ;) !!


I am looking for confirmation of what I heard her someone say - specifically - that under Internationl Law, we are allowed to enter French water ourselves – the UK – intercept and return to France, the inflatables, and containing the uninvited, unwanted “economic migrants masquerading as asylum seekers” . . .


Found it . . . post 25,779 two below :) .
 
Last edited:
Q230 Tim Loughton: Okay, Home Secretary, that is even more worrying
because all our focus has been on France, giving money to the French
and working with the French security forces. You are now saying that a
large increase in people coming across the Channel is coming still from
France but via Belgium, so people in Belgium think it is easier to get
across the Channel by coming into France, despite the fact that we have
given them €31.5 million last year and you are about to give them
another £54 million to do the same thing. Why will it be different this
time?
The French are not doing their part. We have taken evidence on this
Committee about interception of crafts in the water. International
maritime lawyers gave us evidence that the French authorities are
entitled within international maritime law to intercept boats in the water
and
return the passengers to French territory or to allow Border Force to
return the migrants to French territory if they are picked up in British
territorial waters
.
Yesterday a French military naval vessel escorted one
of the boats into British territorial waters and then tried to hand the
occupants over to a boat full of journalists. This is ridiculous and it makes
a mockery of it.
Just giving the French more money to carry on what they are doing badly
will not solve the problem. When will you get the French to admit they
can intercept and get them to intercept? Only that will cut off that supply
of people coming to Calais thinking they can get across the Channel when
in fact they should not be able to get across the Channel if the French do
what they are entitled to do under international law. Rant over. Is that
correct?

Priti Patel: First of all, if I may, France is intercepting more boats than
this time last year. We have to reflect upon that. That is because the
numbers are so high. The numbers are going up.

Q231 Tim Loughton: But they are ignoring it. Do you accept that the French
have the power under international maritime law to intercept boats in
French territorial waters and return them to French territory? What has

your French counterpart told you when you have said—

Priti Patel: They recognise that. They argue that they are doing their bit,
but there is an important point to differentiate here in terms of tactics at
sea. That is different to pushing boats back or saving lives at sea. They
have a different application. Paul and his team have spent a lot of time
having those operational discussions with the French. They have a
different interpretation of safety of lives at sea and the way the SOLAS
principle applies. As I have said, we are looking at all aspects in terms of
pushbacks and how we can have territorial waters—

Q232 Tim Loughton: Okay, but, Home Secretary, that is an excuse from the
French. The French having a different interpretation is the French giving
you an excuse for not doing what they are not only able to do under
international law but actually obliged to do under international law
because the occupants of those boats are committing two crimes. One is
trying to enter the UK illegally and the second is paying money to
organised crime, both of which provide grounds for those boats to be
intercepted and the occupants apprehended in as safe a way as possible
and returned to France. You are getting fobbed off with excuses.

To move on, of those people who have come in the last year to the UK
and have then applied for asylum, how many have been granted asylum
and what is the state of play for the rest . . . ?

Page 21 of 35
Repeated with as much emphasis as possible . . using BOLD, large characters, underline, and colour . . . ;) !!


"Q230 Tim Loughton: . . . International maritime lawyers gave us evidence that the French authorities are entitled within international maritime law to intercept boats in the water and return the passengers to French territory or, to allow Border Force to return the migrants to French territory if they are picked up in British territorial waters".


Page 20 of 35
 
Last edited:
Not really bothered which part of "Greater Albania" they come from . . . just provided they all bugger-off back there ;) !!


I am looking for confirmation of what I heard her say - specifically - that under Internationl Law, we are allowed to enter French water ourselves – the UK – intercept and return to France, the inflatables, and containing the uninvited, unwanted “economic migrants masquerading as asylum seekers” . . .
Entering French TTW im one of HM's vessels without standing waiver or special Dip Clearance will be met most robustly by the French Navy and Gendarmerie. Imagine, for example, if a French Warship or Customs cutter turned up at Dover and discharge a cargo of irregular migrants?

@RCT(V) , as much as you might not like this, there are people on this thread who deal with this business very day as their job.
 
Top