Suella Braverman

[carmanmemoranda]

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.

whichever side of the argument you are on, I think that sums it up fairly well.

to me, if they are illegal, why are they not returned ? If they are not ilegal, what is the problem?

 

[Pat ex]

to me, if they are illegal, why are they not returned ? If they are not ilegal, what is the problem?

In the case of genuine illegal immigrants (based on the previous definition) it's a case of detection, apprehension. and appropriate processing

In the case of failed asylum seekers, the Government frequently release them, allow them to wander the street, with all and any support for them withdrawn, and expect them to make their own way home.
In other cases they are detained in immigration detention centres until they are deported, if ever. There is no legal limit on how long a failed asylum seeker can be detained.

 

[Justin Passing]

Just checked for Somalis. Faily typical set of requirements, I think:

Old now, I doubt it has changed? :

It's easy enough to read between the lines. First there's an F,...

 

[carmanmemoranda]

In the case of genuine illegal immigrants (based on the previous definition) it's a case of detection, apprehension. and appropriate processing

In the case of failed asylum seekers, the Government frequently release them, allow them to wander the street, with all and any support for them withdrawn, and expect them to make their own way home.
In other cases they are detained in immigration detention centres until they are deported, if ever. There is no legal limit on how long a failed asylum seeker can be detained.

so a lack of a co ordinated system?

probably all the fault of immigrants too

 

[motorbiking]

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.

CPS appear to disagree: https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors
Law was subsequently changed (rather quickly) - Judgement no longer has weight.
No they must claim and/or present evidence to support the claim.

 

[Justin Passing]

I can only conclude that, apart from specific Afghani or Ukraine sort of situations, there is no system, because HMG doesn't want people coming here.

Full stop.

 

[fillyboy]

I can only conclude that, apart from specific Afghani or Ukraine sort of situations, there is no system, because HMG doesn't want people coming here.

Full stop.

Why would they?

 

[Justin Passing]

I'll rephrase - they seem to want nobody to come here, full stop.

Why? Votes, laziness, incompetence to benefit from useful immigrants?

 

[JohnD]

I'll rephrase - they seem to want nobody to come here, full stop.

Why? Votes, laziness, incompetence to benefit from useful immigrants?

They want people like Gone to vote for them.

 

[Pat ex]

CPS appear to disagree: https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors
Law was subsequently changed (rather quickly) - Judgement no longer has weight.
No they must claim and/or present evidence to support the claim.

As I have said several times before, a) the CPS have no power of discretion in such cases, but they can and ought to refer the relevant cases to the Home Office, so this legislation is irrelevant, and yet again is more directed at the domestic audience than genuinely affecting the processing of asylum seekers.
In addition, it was 9 years after the judgement of the relevant case, so hardly (rather quickly) and of course under a very different Government.

Moreover, domestic law is subservient to UNHCR, so carries little weight.

 

[Pat ex]

I can only conclude that, apart from specific Afghani or Ukraine sort of situations, there is no system, because HMG doesn't want people coming here.

Full stop.

Why would they?

It matters not whether they want them or not, they have an international duty of care toward refugees.

I'll rephrase - they seem to want nobody to come here, full stop.

Why? Votes, laziness, incompetence to benefit from useful immigrants?

They want the ones with money. Their political affiliations, or their country's Human Rights record has little weight in the desire for them to come here.

 

[motorbiking]

As I have said several times before, a) the CPS have no power of discretion in such cases, but they can and ought to refer the relevant cases to the Home Office, so this legislation is irrelevant, and yet again is more directed at the domestic audience than genuinely affecting the processing of asylum seekers.
In addition, it was 9 years after the judgement of the relevant case, so hardly (rather quickly) and of course under a very different Government.

Moreover, domestic law is subservient to UNHCR, so carries little weight.

SC ruling July 1999 (R v Uxbridge) - Immigration and Asylum Act - passed in November 1999. Not 9 years. The sec 31 defences was considered an 11th hour amendment widely reported as such in the legal press.
After 23 years UNHCR, don't appear to share your view . They have little power other than the odd press statement and academic report. https://www.unhcr.org/5a1b53607.pdf. If they wished to take action against the UK, they would need a resolution, which of course would need to be backed by all the states exercising similar immigration controls.

So wrong again

 

[Notch7]

Why would they?

This sums up perfectly why the refugee crisis and traffickers will just carry on forever.

No country wants to take any, so there won’t be an international collaboration….collaboration means each country reaching an agreement on how much each will take.

No collaboration = no international effort to stop traffickers.


Filly is saying “not my problem” ….and as we all know, nobodies problem is everybodies problem.

 

[motorbiking]

Collaboration could also be a collective approach to restrict access. We should not start with the assumption the door is open.

 

[Pat ex]

Collaboration could also be a collective approach to restrict access. We should not start with the assumption the door is open.

We should start from the assumption that a refugee's life is worth exactly the same as a citizen of a country.
Their accident of birth, of being born into a conflict zone, for instance, a conflict that is indirectly supported by the weapons manufacturing nations, should be no excuse for considering them to be worthless.