The Bell hotel. Looks like it’s set a precedent.

[Notch7]

Blunkett says we should copy the Germans regarding the ECHR. But it's not clear the Germans did or whether it was actually effective.

I can’t find anything which shows Germany did this

 

[Intoxicat]

I've just had a look. The RAF Scampton plan came after the hotels policy was already in place. It was for a maximum of 2,000 asylum seekers. It seems to have been dropped after intense local opposition. I wonder if that would have been different if the asylum seekers had been detained on site.

I'm fairly sure hotels had started being used and this was one of the plans to reduce those numbers. They should be retained in a manner that obeys all the humanitarian requirements, but I also feel that by entering the country illegally, by international law, they can therefore legally be retained as criminals until their claims are processed, i.e. not letting them venture out into the local communities. The Government's own website states:

"Under section 24 (B1) of the Immigration Act 1971, a person who a) requires leave to enter the United Kingdom and, b) knowingly enters the UK without such leave, commits an offence which is triable both ways.

A person who commits this offence, on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine, or both. On summary conviction in Scotland, that person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both. In Northern Ireland, the maximum sentence on summary conviction is 6 months imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.

For conviction on indictment, that person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years or a fine, or both.

However, most cases are normally managed using administrative powers to consider whether it is right to remove a person from the UK, except where there are aggravating or egregious factors that mean it is in the public interest that the individual should be prosecuted."

As far as I can tell (because it is complicated), it seems that even if they have committed a criminal act by entering the country illegally, as soon as the asylum claim is submitted we have lo legal power to treat them as criminals until their case has been decided. Surely, no matter what the initial cost, the best way to deter illegal migrants without a genuine case, is to process their claims within days. The cost might initially be huge, but I would have thought it would pay for itself in a very short time. Perhaps I'm being a bit naive.

 

[Notch7]

.

 

[MNW67]

As far as I can tell (because it is complicated), it seems that even if they have committed a criminal act by entering the country illegally, as soon as the asylum claim is submitted we have lo legal power to treat them as criminals until their case has been decided.

I don't know either. It might come down to Article 31 of the Refugee Convention.

Surely, no matter what the initial cost, the best way to deter illegal migrants without a genuine case, is to process their claims within days. The cost might initially be huge, but I would have thought it would pay for itself in a very short time. Perhaps I'm being a bit naive.

The problem any plan always comes up against is what to do with the large number of failed asylum seekers who can't be deported for one reason or another.

They should be retained in a manner that obeys all the humanitarian requirements, but I also feel that by entering the country illegally, by international law, they can therefore legally be retained as criminals until their claims are processed, i.e. not letting them venture out into the local communities.

Article 5 of the ECHR usually prevents arbitrary detention of groups of people. But there seems to be an exception for people who entered the country unlawfully. So, it will probably come down to the interaction between Article 31 of the Refugee Convention and Article 5 of the ECHR. Greece, for instance, detains tens of thousands of asylum seekers in camps.

 

[Notch7]

As far as I can tell (because it is complicated), it seems that even if they have committed a criminal act by entering the country illegally, as soon as the asylum claim is submitted we have lo legal power to treat them as criminals until their case has been decided. Surely, no matter what the initial cost, the best way to deter illegal migrants without a genuine case, is to process their claims within days. The cost might initially be huge, but I would have thought it would pay for itself in a very short time. Perhaps I'm being a bit naive.

Processing asylum claims quickly is definitely the correct thing to do, although it’s never going to be very quick, it’s probably like buying a house.

If they cross the border to claim asylum it’s not a criminal offence, these people aren’t criminals as a result of them doing so. Calling them ‘illegals’ was a phrase made common by the Tories for deliberate inflammatory reasons

 

[denso13]

is to process their claims within days

Maybe not days but should be much quicker, we'd still need cooperation from other countries to return those who are not genuine.

 

[Highway Man]

Maybe not days but should be much quicker, we'd still need cooperation from other countries to return those who are not genuine.

Reform are looking at doing a deal with Afghanistan and other countries to return them.

 

[MNW67]

Reform are looking at doing a deal with Afghanistan and other countries to return them.

Yes, he wants to return genuine refugees even when they will be tortured or killed. His plan involves opting out of the international convention against torture.

 

[Highway Man]

Yes, we wants to return genuine refugees even when they will be tortured or killed. His plan involves opting out of the international convention against torture.

A very good deterent to not cross the chanel, it would be their own choice if they opt to do this.

 

[MNW67]

A very good deterent to not cross the chanel, it would be their own choice if they opt to do this.

I think we can come up with a better plan. I honestly don't believe that you would like to see people being tortured.

 

[Highway Man]

I think we can come up with a better plan. I honestly don't believe that you would like to see people being tortured.

Not in the least. However most of these that will be sent back will not be genuine refugees

 

[Highway Man]

I think we can come up with a better plan. I honestly don't believe that you would like to see people being tortured.

Sort of makes the Rwanda deal look favourable?

 

[denso13]

Reform are looking at doing a deal with Afghanistan and other countries to return them.

Not sure about the Taliban, but so is the PM.

 

[Highway Man]

Not sure about the Taliban, but so is the PM.

He is just copying Reform, it's too late for him now

 

[aveatry]

I've just had a look. The RAF Scampton plan came after the hotels policy was already in place. It was for a maximum of 2,000 asylum seekers. It seems to have been dropped after intense local opposition. I wonder if that would have been different if the asylum seekers had been detained on site.

The locals must be kicking themselves now because instead they are now going to be taking up first time buyers houses right next door to them.