Suella Braverman

Joined
6 Aug 2022
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
96
Country
United Kingdom
It's clear the Home Office is using such twisty legal terms in order to speed up the asylum claims process. A quick stroke of the pen and hey presto! Manston is cleared in a matter of days when the previous process took too long and left them there for months.
A legal expediency to dig themselves out of a political hole.
?
Sorry, I don't understand your comment.
All the detained at Manston were asylum seekers. The process has not been speeded up, they've simply been found alternative accommodation (in some case dumped outside a railway station).
I believe Manston is a detention centre, and, I believe, there is a legal limit (UN defined perhaps, not defined in UK, which is about the only one to not have a legal limit defined) on the time allowed to detain asylum applicants before they are accorded proper accommodation.
As I understand it, this legal time limit on detaining asylum seekers was breached, and the legal capacity of the centre was also breached.

There could be a suspicion that such detention was being used in the discouragement of asylum seekers.
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
Joined
31 May 2016
Messages
8,715
Reaction score
1,061
Country
United Kingdom
@Pat ex, I'll have one last go at trying to explain the basic legal concepts. But first lets look at the "fast track" option to import a wife or child.

Option A. Apply for asylum, the vast majority are processed in under 6 months and some can take up to 2-3 years. So best case a year, worse case 3.
Option B. Apply for asylum (see above) then after 5 years, apply for citizenship. Then apply to bring your family over subject to the usual criteria. 5+ years minimum.

Which is the faster track Option: A or B? If you need a hint it isn't B.

Let's take a look at your comment on the judgement back in 1999, which you claim allows
minor breaches of minor breaches are excusable for asylum seekers, or those intending to claim asylum.

You rely on Adimi (R v Uxbridge Stipendiary Magistrate Stephen Day and CPS ex parte Adimi, CO/2533/99 R v CPS ex parte Sorani; R v SSHD ex parte Sorani, CO/3007/98 and CO/2742/98 R v CPS ex parte Kaziu and R v SSHD ex parte Kaziu CO/1167/99 QBD 29 July 1999) as legal precedent, giving a broad scope of offences which could be excused in genuine cases of asylum seeking. It was indeed valid up until the government of the day amended the law via the Immigration and Asylum Bill, enacting an article 31 'defence' only a few months later. These have been provided and thus Adimi is no longer precedent and hasn't been for at least 20 years.

Judges do not make law, they interpret it. Parliament makes laws and after the above ruling, they changed it - end of Adimi.

Thus you are entirely wrong as usual.
 
Joined
6 Aug 2022
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
96
Country
United Kingdom
Let's take a look at your comment on the judgement back in 1999, which you claim allows


You rely on Adimi (R v Uxbridge Stipendiary Magistrate Stephen Day and CPS ex parte Adimi, CO/2533/99 R v CPS ex parte Sorani; R v SSHD ex parte Sorani, CO/3007/98 and CO/2742/98 R v CPS ex parte Kaziu and R v SSHD ex parte Kaziu CO/1167/99 QBD 29 July 1999) as legal president, giving a broad scope of offences which could be excused in genuine cases of asylum seeking. It was indeed valid up until the government of the day amended the law via the Immigration and Asylum Bill, enacting an article 31 'defence' only a few months later. These have been provided and thus Adimi is no longer president and hasn't been for at least 20 years.

Judges do not make law, they interpret it. Parliament makes laws and after the above ruling, they changed it - end of Adimi.
UK domestic law should follow UNHCR requirements. Where it falls below that, then the UNHCR applies. Domestic law will never change that, unless UK resigns from the UNHCR.
So UK domestic law enacted for domestic consumption is pointless and serves only to highlight the inhumanity of the Government.

In the recent net migration data, the overwhelming immigrants were here by lawful means.
A tiny fraction of those were asylum seekers. Yet the Government whips up domestic furore over the tiny fraction of asylum seekers, instead of creating safe and legal routes.
 
Joined
11 Nov 2020
Messages
2,196
Reaction score
269
Location
Middle Earth
Country
United Kingdom
There's plenty of safe, legal routes into the UK which the govt. doesn't need to create in order to facilitate the free movement of migrants seeking illegal avenues of entry. We call them roads.
 
Sponsored Links

JohnD

T*ts like coconuts
Joined
15 Nov 2005
Messages
79,910
Reaction score
5,224
Location
South
Country
Cook Islands
There's plenty of safe, legal routes into the UK which the govt. doesn't need to create in order to facilitate the free movement of migrants seeking illegal avenues of entry. We call them roads.
You mean from RoI?
 
Joined
11 Nov 2020
Messages
2,196
Reaction score
269
Location
Middle Earth
Country
United Kingdom
You mean from RoI?
sure, why not.
or you can legally find entry at one of many other available outlets - it's easy enough to cross from Denmark to Sweden now they've built a lovely long bridge for your comfort and convenience.
 

JohnD

T*ts like coconuts
Joined
15 Nov 2005
Messages
79,910
Reaction score
5,224
Location
South
Country
Cook Islands
Please give me an example of a road from anywhere else entering UK.
 
Joined
6 Aug 2022
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
96
Country
United Kingdom
Ireland is not part of the Schengen zone.
To travel from EU to Ireland you'd need to show your passport.
 
Joined
6 Aug 2022
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
96
Country
United Kingdom
Not founded in any law however:
An illegal immigrant is someone who has entered a country without the right to do so (citizenship, visa etc).
A refugee/Asylum seeker is someone who has presented themselves to the authority and claimed this right or providing sufficient information for it to be clear that they meet the requirements.
Potential asylum seekers are not excused from "minor breaches of immigration law" or any subsequent breaches of immigration law, once they have claimed asylum.
A person breaking the speed limit to get someone to hospital - pleads his case to the magistrate who may at his discretion find the person guilty, but give them an absolute discharge.
CPS do not have discretion in deciding who to prosecute if the evidence suggests they will be guilty.
In cases of traffic offences they will obviously not be transferred to the Home Office to apply their discretion.
In the case of minor breaches of immigration law, the case should be referred to the Home Office who can use their discretion.

The case judgement stated specifically that minor breaches of immigration law can be excused in the cases of Asylum Seekers or potential Asylum Seekers.
It went on to say that a reasonable delay in applying for Asylum is also excusable.

It's a bit pointless labelling a refugee as an illegal immigrant while they transit from the beach to the Asylum processing centre where they cease to be an illegal immigrant and become an Asylum Seeker.

It's all down to the definition: an illegal immigrant is someone who lives or works in the country, when they do not have the legal right to do so.
An Asylum Seeker (and a potential Asylum Seeker) has a legal right to be in the country, to seek asylum.
 
Joined
6 Aug 2022
Messages
2,103
Reaction score
96
Country
United Kingdom
Option A. Apply for asylum, the vast majority are processed in under 6 months and some can take up to 2-3 years. So best case a year, worse case 3.
Here's a story from a genuine refugee discussing the typical problems experience in Family Reunions from conflict areas.
When Faridun and his family were forced to leave Afghanistan, their search for safety kept them apart for four years. Until one day last year, when one of his sons stepped into a Red Cross family tracing office…

It shows that the difficulties re not limited to the Family Reunion process.
 
Sponsored Links
Top