Potential Immigrants

[spen666]

Just got back from a couple of days around Dunkerque (amongst other places). It was noticeable how many more potential migrants were camping out in the area / hanging out there compared to 12 months ago.

It seems they have not been deterred by any of the current tactics used by the UK or French authorities

 

[Ian H]

Just got back from a couple of days around Dunkerque (amongst other places). It was noticeable how many more potential migrants were camping out in the area / hanging out there compared to 12 months ago.

It seems they have not been deterred by any of the current tactics used by the UK or French authorities

They may have moved because of the aggressive tactics of the police at Calais.

 

[icowden]

If only there were some way of dealing with them? Maybe instead of paying 500 million for extra policing it might have been better to spend that money on processing their asylum claims? Perhaps some sort of online system so that they can apply without having to risk drowning?

Perhaps as well, we could join some sort of Union with say 27 or so other countries and develop the system so that all countries are available for asylum and claims can be processed from anywhere?

I mean- it's not like the number of claims is going to reduce. it's going to go up a lot due to many countries becoming unliveable in. As a really long shot we could send in military force to liberate Afghanistan from the Taliban - that would greatly reduce the number of Afghan asylum seekers.

 

[CXRAndy]

They may have moved because of the aggressive tactics of the police at Calais.

Yeah the sign on beaches made them flee the oppressive French

 

[AuroraSaab]

How would being able to apply from the EU, or other parts of the world, stop people from crossing the Channel? The numbers applying would be large, the waiting time for a decision lengthy. Once you're in the UK already you have a better chance of being allowed to stay surely? I can't see the establishment of safe channels doing much to disuade those who don't have a very, very strong case or have already been refused elsewhere, or who know their country won't take them back.

 

[Pblakeney]

How would being able to apply from the EU, or other parts of the world, stop people from crossing the Channel? The numbers applying would be large, the waiting time for a decision lengthy. Once you're in the UK already you have a better chance of being allowed to stay surely? I can't see the establishment of safe channels doing much to disuade those who don't have a very, very strong case or have already been refused elsewhere, or who know their country won't take them back.

They won't need to make the dangerous journey across the Channel, or pay people traffickers for the privilege.
This is not going to change so we need to speed up the process.
Not if the process is robust.
Those people are entitled to claim asylum.

 

[Bromptonaut]

How would being able to apply from the EU, or other parts of the world, stop people from crossing the Channel? The numbers applying would be large, the waiting time for a decision lengthy. Once you're in the UK already you have a better chance of being allowed to stay surely? I can't see the establishment of safe channels doing much to disuade those who don't have a very, very strong case or have already been refused elsewhere, or who know their country won't take them back.

We start with baby steps; processing in Calais. With the right technology, staffing and training that should be quick. Obviously biometrics would be taken in France.

As part of that we'd need a returns agreement with France.

 

[AuroraSaab]

If you knew the wait to get a yes/no was likely to be many months (minimum) and was likely to be No anyway - which it likely would if you were say Afghan or Iranian and already safe in France (unless it was family reunification thing), or had already been refused - I can't see why that would be a deterrent to illegal entry. We're currently paying France millions but it doesn't seem to be making a difference so I can't see why they (or any other country) would suddenly start cooperating with a plan that would essentially keep almost all would be channel crossers in France.

Anybody is entitled to apply for asylum, but it's easier to get (or some type of residency or leave to remain, if not asylum) if you're already in the country. Especially if your own country won't take you back, eg Afghanistan and Iran.

 

[Psamathe]

How would being able to apply from the EU, or other parts of the world, stop people from crossing the Channel? The numbers applying would be large, the waiting time for a decision lengthy. Once you're in the UK already you have a better chance of being allowed to stay surely? I can't see the establishment of safe channels doing much to disuade those who don't have a very, very strong case or have already been refused elsewhere, or who know their country won't take them back.

Ensure the full rights of process (submit claim, appeal, etc.) are available and the outcome is same whether claim submitted in France or UK. Why risk your life and spend a fortune you don't have to achieve the same as not risking your life and spending a fortune you don't have.

Anybody already rejected arriving on UK shores wouldn't get to apply again. Their claim is already considered and rejected so they'd be immediately (same day) deported with no appeal as they've already been through all available appeal processes.

At the same time process asylum claims in a timely manner so apply for asylum after arriving and decision made quickly so if rejected you don't get to stay in UK for ages.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Ensure the full rights of process (submit claim, appeal, etc.) are available and the outcome is same whether claim submitted in France or UK. Why risk your life and spend a fortune you don't have to achieve the same as not risking your life and spending a fortune you don't have.

Anybody already rejected arriving on UK shores wouldn't get to apply again. Their claim is already considered and rejected so they'd be immediately (same day) deported with no appeal as they've already been through all available appeal processes.

At the same time process asylum claims in a timely manner so apply for asylum after arriving and decision made quickly so if rejected you don't get to stay in UK for ages.

That.

Exactly.

 

[Psamathe]

Especially if your own country won't take you back, eg Afghanistan and Iran.

I wonder what the legal position is regarding returns for those whose claims are rejected. If I walk across a border from country <a> to country <b> and they refuse me entry I have to walk back to country <a> irrespective of my nationality ie I'm not returned to my country of citizenship.

In this case we are talking about people whose asylum claims are rejected so they are of the same status as I would be travelling between two countries ie arrive at border and get visa voided and you go back where you came from not to country of citizenship.

If country of citizenship is not a requirement for non-refugees I assume they can be given a choice of countries that will accept them.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Anybody already rejected arriving on UK shores wouldn't get to apply again. Their claim is already considered and rejected so they'd be immediately (same day) deported with no appeal as they've already been through all available appeal processes.

If they're Afghan or Iranian - whose countries will not take them back - where do you deport them to? France? Where they entered the EU? I can't see the French, or other EU countries, going for that.

 

[Bromptonaut]

If they're Afghan or Iranian - whose countries will not take them back - where do you deport them to? France? Where they entered the EU? I can't see the French, or other EU countries, going for that.

However 'safe routes' are constituted what happens to the unsuccessful and those still chancing it in small boats needs to be built in.

 

[Psamathe]

If they're Afghan or Iranian - whose countries will not take them back - where do you deport them to? France? Where they entered the EU? I can't see the French, or other EU countries, going for that.

eg If I (British citizen) arrive at a French port having already used up my Schengen limits I'm forced to return to the UK.
If an Iranian citizen arrived ain UK (with no valid asylum claim) then as an Iranian citizen you put them of a flight to Iran.

Remember we are talking numbers here. Start timely processing of asylum claims from France and the majority will chose that path rather than risking their lives in a small boat spending a fortune they don't have.As number drop to low so the business model of the people smugglers is destroyed, no longer worth them getting boats there, etc. for so few people. So the route is stopped and maybe the few whose claims are rejected and can't be returned will have to try and find other means? But numbers will be dramatically reduced. Boats will not be sinking mid-Channel with the deaths, etc.

Also, the majority of people applying are having their asylum claims accepted. It's the minority whose claims are rejected, then from that minority many will likely be from countries they can be returned to, etc. So the number of failed asylum claims who can't be returned becomes very low.

I'm still undecided about the Government's suggestion it might stop all visas (or all types) for citizens from countries refusing to take back citizens whose asylym claims are rejected. I've not heard much discussion about practicality, negative aspects, etc. so I'm still open minded on that.

 

[AuroraSaab]

If an Iranian citizen arrived ain UK (with no valid asylum claim) then as an Iranian citizen you put them of a flight to Iran.

Iran will not take their citizens back. Afghanistan will not take their citizens back. It's a fairly small number of countries that we actually have agreements to return with.

These 2 countries account for many of those crossing the channel. Even if the procedures were so 'timely' that you got a decision in a week, then a possible appeal and a decision on that appeal within a week, those who arrive here from Afghanistan and Iran are then going where?

Remember we are talking numbers here. Start timely processing of asylum claims from France and the majority will chose that path rather than risking their lives in a small boat spending a fortune they don't have.

I just can't see it being a deterrent given the large numbers that might apply and the fact that it's much easier to get right to remain once you're already in the UK.

In 2024 47% of initial asylum claims were approved. Of those who appealed their rejection (not sure how many of the rejected 53% appealed), 33% were approved. Those applying from France won't have a government funded lawyer to help them so I think there will still be plenty of people willing to risk a channel crossing because once you're here and in the system you have a better chance of a positive outcome, if not first time then on appeal.