Suella Braverman

[Pat ex]

I'm very supportive of immigration, but I'm struggling to understand the point of this MP's question. He seems to be conflating two issues, asylum, and family migration. Rather than helping, he just seems to have made it more confusing. From past experience, I don't think he's the brightest spark in the box.

He's not conflating anything. He's asking a question that probably occurs frequently.
Suppose an under 18 year old reaches UK, applies for asylum (which should be granted because they're under 18)
He/she left an area due upheaval and conflict. His/her parents were killed in the upheaval, leaving an orphaned sibling.
That sibling would need to make the same hazardous journey to join his brother/sister.

One could argue that the point of the MPs question was two fold:
To point out one of the problems and omissions in the current asylum policy, and
to highlight the incapability and ignorance of the current HS.

 

[motorbiking]

Siblings are not partners nor children of the applicant.

https://www.gov.uk/settlement-refugee-or-humanitarian-protection/family-reunion

You need to read your links carefully to ensure you understand them.

To answer the question. In the clip, it was a sibling, but if the Childs parents are here they can apply here on behalf of their child. Same applies to the spouse.

I think I was clear in my reply. See highlighting.


Nothing stops mythical African teen, in mythical dangerous state, from travelling to nearest mythical safe country and applying for asylum, which his/her mythical sibling could have done. There are 1.3bn people living in Africa, its entirely impractical to have anything other than specifically targeted aid/refugee policies.

 

[Pat ex]

Cruella's response was something like 'an illegal immigrant can apply for asylum like anyone else, then they become a migrant, processed through the system...' a handy loophole.

A refugee is not by default, illegal.
By default they are legally entitled to enter a country and claim asylum.

 

[Pat ex]

I think I was clear in my reply. See highlighting.

So your response was incorrect and presumptive.
You agree that siblings could not apply for asylum from some remote location, then you went on to say that partners or children could.
I pointed out that in your "replacement scenario", the parents. or the partner would need to meet the minimum income threshold.

Nothing stops mythical African teen, in mythical dangerous state, from travelling to nearest mythical safe country and applying for asylum, which his/her mythical sibling could have done.

The restrictive UK policy and practices prevent the orphaned sibling form joining his/her sibling in UK.
It forces them to make the same hazardous journey for a family reunion.
But UK claims to want to prevent sea crossings.

And role playing is an important tool in exploring problems.

There are 1.3bn people living in Africa, its entirely impractical to have anything other than specifically targeted aid/refugee policies.

Irrelevant diversion. Many African refugees reach UK and claim asylum.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[blup]

@Notch7 2,000,000 x £4,258 per month - there may be room physically, but the costs are huge, even with economy of scale.
@Pat ex wrong as usual https://www.gov.uk/settlement-refugee-or-humanitarian-protection/family-reunion

At a loss why they are not allowed to work under supervised conditions, with so much unemployment and a system - and home secretary - that aren't fit for purpose.

Blup

 

[JonathanM]

I have a technical question, about something the MP said.

He said you can't just get on a plane and fly to the UK, without the right visa. I haven't flown for almost thirty years. But, in those days, I thought your inbound visa was only checked when you landed at your destination, not before you got on the flight. Has that changed now?

 

[Pat ex]

At a loss why they are not allowed to work under supervised conditions, with so much unemployment and a system - and home secretary - that aren't fit for purpose.

Blup

Did you mean with so little unemployment, and such a labour shortage?

 

[motorbiking]

A refugee is not by default, illegal.
By default they are legally entitled to enter a country and claim asylum.

Technically she is correct, though I note you are being careful with your statement.
A person who enters the UK illegally is still an "illegal immigrant" until they leverage their defence https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/33/section/31

You agree that siblings could not apply for asylum from some remote location, then you went on to say that partners or children could.
I pointed out that in your "replacement scenario", the parents. or the partner would need to meet the minimum income threshold.

Correct and your reply was still wrong. There is no such "means test". You are confusing (this time) regular applications for immigration with the rights granted specifically to those who have refugee status.

 

[Pat ex]

I have a technical question, about something the MP said.

He said you can't just get on a plane and fly to the UK, without the right visa. I haven't flown for almost thirty years. But, in those days, I thought your inbound visa was only checked when you landed at your destination, not before you got on the flight. Has that changed now?

The Carriers Act places the responsibility firmly on the carrier to ensure the traveller has the correct documents to enter the country.
if they are refused permission to enter the carrier has the responsibility to take the traveller back to the point of departure.
Hence the Carriers check your documents to ensure validity at the point of embarkation.

I'm pretty sure this is an old argument that's been refuted numerous times.

But round and round we go again.

 

[JonathanM]

The Carriers Act places the responsibility firmly on the carrier to ensure the traveller has the correct documents to enter the country.
if they are refused permission to enter the carrier has the responsibility to take the traveller back to the point of departure.
Hence the Carriers check your documents to ensure validity at the point of embarkation.

Thanks.

 

[motorbiking]

I have a technical question, about something the MP said.

He said you can't just get on a plane and fly to the UK, without a visa. I haven't flown for almost thirty years. But, in those days, I thought your inbound visa was only checked when you landed at your destination, not before you got on the flight. Has that changed now?

Before the boat traffickers set up, people would obtain false papers and book a flight. Operationally the airline will likely check you have all the necessary paperwork, because they can be held liable for your costs. This is spread among various piece of aviation law The Carriers Act 1830 isn't relevant.

 

[Pat ex]

Technically she is correct, though I note you are being careful with your statement.
A person who enters the UK illegally is still an "illegal immigrant" until they leverage their defence https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/33/section/31

In the judgement of the case recently referred to, it made it obvious that reasonable delays do not impact on the status of a refugee.
That judgement was based on the UNHCR, which overrides UK domestic law.

Correct and your reply was still wrong. There is no such "means test". You are confusing (this time) regular applications for immigration with the rights granted specifically to those who have refugee status.

It is you that is now conflating two scenarios.

You claimed that an asylum seeker could claim asylum for a partner or child that is not in the UK. That is partly correct. They would need to have been granted a 5 year leave to remain, i.e. their application would be as good as totally successful.
If they were in that position, the Government would then apply the income test.

 

[Pat ex]

Before the boat traffickers set up, people would obtain false papers and book a flight. Operationally the airline will likely check you have all the necessary paperwork, because they can be held liable for your costs. This is spread among various piece of aviation law The Carriers Act 1830 isn't relevant.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1068088/Charging_procedures_-_a_guide_for_carriers.pdf

It may not be called the Carriers Act anymore, but the relevant Acts apply to the Carriers.

 

[Odds]

A refugee is not by default, illegal.
By default they are legally entitled to enter a country and claim asylum.

But a refugee can enter a country illegally, apply for an asylum application then become a legal migrant, as Cruella says. How is this right?

 

[motorbiking]

@Pat ex It never was anything to do with the Carriers Act.

You are now correctly quoting https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/33/section/40

@Odds I think the government would like a targeted policy that enables them to apply some control. Other countries are doing similar things. I'm not aware of any country that operates safe legal routes for asylum for anyone.