Brexit

Log in to stop seeing adverts

fitz

Well-Known Member
I was referring to the people trafficking.

I think pretty much everyone has been against that. It just seems odd that migrant crossings become big news everytime the government do something unpopular with the large %age of the country....even though we're told these crossings happen so often. Normally a story with a proposed solution that they know won't ever be implimented.
 

pork pie fox

Well-Known Member
Am I missing something? Nothing there disputes what I posted.
No idea. I didn't really get the point you were making, as you said:
"However my understanding is that anyone landing in the UK not in a usual entry point or claiming asylum immediately is entering the country illegally. Most of those crossing the channel are in this category."

This doesn't really help as there was no mention of where they were landing and whether or not they had immediately claimed asylum. I was just putting a link up to some more info on the situation with regards to asylum seekers and you could then hopefully work out if it applied to those you were discussing.

I have no idea how many crossing the channel in such a way do either of these things, for all I know it could be 0%, or it could be 100%, or, more realistically, somewhere in between. The link just hopefully clarifies what the regulations are for those who are genuinely seeking asylum, whatever proportion that may be and hopefully we all don't assume that everyone who does it is doing it for the same reasons.
 

Ike O'Noclassed

Well-Known Member
I think pretty much everyone has been against that. It just seems odd that migrant crossings become big news everytime the government do something unpopular with the large %age of the country....even though we're told these crossings happen so often. Normally a story with a proposed solution that they know won't ever be implimented.

I think a spell of warm weather and calm seas towards the end of the trafficking season is also a factor.
 

homer

Well-Known Member
Even when it was the bears, I knew it was the Immiggants
 

Brown Nose

Well-Known Member
No idea. I didn't really get the point you were making, as you said:
"However my understanding is that anyone landing in the UK not in a usual entry point or claiming asylum immediately is entering the country illegally. Most of those crossing the channel are in this category."

This doesn't really help as there was no mention of where "they" were landing and whether or not "they" had immediately claimed asylum. I was just putting a link up to some more info on the situation with regards to asylum seekers and you could then hopefully work out if it applied to "those" you were discussing.

I have no idea how many crossing the channel in such a way do either of these things, for all I know it could be 0%, or it could be 100%, or, more realistically, somewhere in between. The link just hopefully clarifies what the regulations are for those who are genuinely seeking asylum, whatever proportion that may be and hopefully we all don't assume that everyone who does it is doing it for the same reasons.

Okay fair enough. I do actually know a bit about the asylum process due to my job. The majority of entrants via the boats in the channel are the category I referenced.
However, obviously, it's impossible to say volumes or percentages with any certainty because many successfully cross the channel undetected and, usually, head to London.

If they are intercepted at sea or on landing, they claim asylum. That's what they're told to do anyway. That makes them 'legal' until their case is heard.
 

Darth Vodka

Well-Known Member
However my understanding is that anyone landing in the UK not in a usual entry point or claiming asylum immediately is entering the country illegally.

it's not illegal to cross the channel in a dinghy to seek asylum in the UK
 

Darth Vodka

Well-Known Member

Interesting article in the FT pointing out how the kicking-the-can stalemate will plod on for the foreseeable future
 

Lako42

Well-Known Member

Interesting article in the FT pointing out how the kicking-the-can stalemate will plod on for the foreseeable future

The current rate of inflation increase means some won't be able to kick anything down the road soon.
 

Darth Vodka

Well-Known Member
The current rate of inflation increase means some won't be able to kick anything down the road soon.

huh?

they can certainly keep on delaying border checks in the face of rampant inflation? I fail to see the link?
 

Darth Vodka

Well-Known Member
Log in to stop seeing adverts

Premier League

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool614
2Manchester City613
3Chelsea613
4Manchester Utd613
5Everton613
6Brighton512
7West Ham Utd611
8Aston Villa610
9Brentford69
10Tottenham 59
11Watford67
12Leicester67
13Arsenal56
14Palace55
15Southampton54
16Wolves53
17Newcastle Utd63
18Leeds Utd63
19Burnley62
20Norwich City60
Top