English Channel migrant crossing crisis

[Merpedy]

There’s people arriving on the back of lorries and planes it’s not only boats.

Yes and the point is that the government doesn’t talk about it or publish many stats on it. They basically admit that air arrivals aren’t moderated appropriately

The news and everything coming from the government would make you think that nearly everyone is arriving via a dinghy

 

[Blueblue123]

That’s what I thought it meant when I originally read it but was surprised to see that the % is fairly low. The news would make you think nearly everyone is arriving by boat

Exactly. 30,000 in 2021 judging by the screenshot you shared. And the same snippet says 90% are genuinely seeking asylum.

To put that into perspective there is all this uproar over approximately 3,000 people (in 2021 anyway).

 

[monga]

Yes and the point is that the government doesn’t talk about it or publish many stats on it. They basically admit that air arrivals aren’t moderated appropriately

The news and everything coming from the government would make you think that nearly everyone is arriving via a dinghy

I already posted about those arriving at Dublin airport and destroying their documents, these people are free to travel in the common travel area between UK and Ireland there are no border checks.
---

You can check here how many arrive by boat ( those they’re aware of)

Migrants detected crossing the English Channel in small boats – last 7 days

www.gov.uk

 

[Merpedy]

those they’re aware of

The only reason I'm looking into this is because the illegal migrant stuff depends on them not picking up people when they arrive - which seems very unlikely as I have already said

Whether people like it or not, illegal migrants are different from asylum claimants because asylum claimants become legal (not that they ever were illegal if their intention is to seek asylum) once they ask for asylum which requires them to present themselves to an authority and be documented

I already posted about those arriving at Dublin airport and destroying their documents, these people are free to travel in the common travel area between UK and Ireland there are no border checks.

Assuming I just read the article you posted before, 77% claimed asylum and I would guess that they can't just get up and leave as simply as that. I'm guessing the rest were dealt with accordingly rather than just let into the next country
Thousands of asylum seekers arrive at Dublin Airport with no travel documents – The Irish Times

 

[monga]

The only reason I'm looking into this is because the illegal migrant stuff depends on them not picking up people when they arrive - which seems very unlikely as I have already said

Whether people like it or not, illegal migrants are different from asylum claimants because asylum claimants become legal (not that they ever were illegal if their intention is to seek asylum) once they ask for asylum which requires them to present themselves to an authority and be documented


Assuming I just read the article you posted before, 77% claimed asylum and I would guess that they can't just get up and leave as simply as that. I'm guessing the rest were dealt with accordingly rather than just let into the next country
Thousands of asylum seekers arrive at Dublin Airport with no travel documents – The Irish Times

I already pointed out migrants are not asylum seekers? They didn’t travel there without documentation they destroy them before they reach customs and then claim asylum, those people are then free to travel to the UK unchecked and become economic migrants/ asylum seekers .

 

[Blueblue123]

The only reason I'm looking into this is because the illegal migrant stuff depends on them not picking up people when they arrive - which seems very unlikely as I have already said

Whether people like it or not, illegal migrants are different from asylum claimants because asylum claimants become legal (not that they ever were illegal if their intention is to seek asylum) once they ask for asylum which requires them to present themselves to an authority and be documented


Assuming I just read the article you posted before, 77% claimed asylum and I would guess that they can't just get up and leave as simply as that. I'm guessing the rest were dealt with accordingly rather than just let into the next country
Thousands of asylum seekers arrive at Dublin Airport with no travel documents – The Irish Times

Right. The article says they weren't given leave to land, which I assume means enter. So while it might be worrying to see people turn up in the 10s, 100s or 1000s, it appears they're not always successful in their attempt to bypass security.

It's like reading about all the terror plots that were stopped. It's scary to think of how many bad people are planning evil acts but at the same time, comforting to know that they're being stopped in their tracks so not really worth fretting over beyond that.
---

I already pointed out migrants are not asylum seekers? They didn’t travel there without documentation they destroy them before they reach customs and then claim asylum, those people are then free to travel to the UK unchecked and become economic migrants/ asylum seekers .

But the article states: This led to an increase in people being refused leave to land and being put back on flights for return to their destination.

Which doesn't indicate they're free to travel to the UK.

 

[monga]

Right. The article says they weren't given leave to land, which I assume means enter. So while it might be worrying to see people turn up in the 10s, 100s or 1000s, it appears they're not always successful in their attempt to bypass security.

It's like reading about all the terror plots that were stopped. It's scary to think of how many bad people are planning evil acts but at the same time, comforting to know that they're being stopped in their tracks so not really worth fretting over beyond that.
---



But the article states: This led to an increase in people being refused leave to land and being put back on flights for return to their destination.

Which doesn't indicate they're free to travel to the UK.

Only those they stop before they leave the plane, I’m not talking about them flying to UK they can easily travel north by bus and get a ferry across unchecked.
---

Right. The article says they weren't given leave to land, which I assume means enter. So while it might be worrying to see people turn up in the 10s, 100s or 1000s, it appears they're not always successful in their attempt to bypass security.

It's like reading about all the terror plots that were stopped. It's scary to think of how many bad people are planning evil acts but at the same time, comforting to know that they're being stopped in their tracks so not really worth fretting over beyond that.
---



But the article states: This led to an increase in people being refused leave to land and being put back on flights for return to their destination.

Which doesn't indicate they're free to travel to the UK.

I think you must have read that wrong when they’re refused leave to land they claim asylum .

Thousands of asylum seekers arrive at Dublin Airport with no travel documents

Figures indicate large numbers losing or destroying passports before reaching immigration control

www.irishtimes.com

 

[Merpedy]

Only those they stop before they leave the plane, I’m not talking about them flying to UK they can easily travel north by bus and get a ferry across unchecked.

I'm confused because last time I checked getting out of an airport without going through security is probably near impossible. Is there any data to suggest that those who claim asylum in ROI then travel to the UK and are not picked up as having done so during screening interviews? People are generally asked how and through which countries they travelled, and I would think that if they turn up near ROI rather than Kent there is some suspicion that they are lying

Entering legally also can mean that they had the appropriate visas that simply ran out - Blueblue mentioned this already. Completely different from asylum claimants. Can you imagine how many EU migrants that haven't applied for pre/settled status there are after Brexit now?

 

[monga]

I'm confused because last time I checked getting out of an airport without going through security is probably near impossible. Is there any data to suggest that those who claim asylum in ROI then travel to the UK and are not picked up as having done so during screening interviews? People are generally asked how and through which countries they travelled, and I would think that if they turn up near ROI rather than Kent there is some suspicion that they are lying

Entering legally also can mean that they had the appropriate visas that simply ran out - Blueblue mentioned this already. Completely different from asylum claimants. Can you imagine how many EU migrants that haven't applied for pre/settled status there are after Brexit now?

A lot of them disappear from the hotels just like UK they’re not held prisoner while their claims are processed.Ireland is still in the EU Brexit doesn’t affect it, even NI is still in the single market
I’m technically a British Citizen but I hold an Irish passport I don’t need any documentation like British passport holders need ,I’m free to travel in the EU without restrictions.

 

[Merpedy]

A lot of them disappear from the hotels just like UK

Statistics on this would be useful as it seems that the UK doesn't publish anything on this, though I think we discussed before that there's a lot of importance in how things are defined

Example:
From 2016 but does criticise the stats HO was publishing at the time as being sort of misleading as it included people who missed their screening interview - which now appears to be near impossible unless you arrived during COVID as screening interviews are conducted before you're released on bail - but may have turned up afterwards
Have 12,000 asylum seekers vanished in the UK? - Full Fact

 

[monga]

Statistics on this would be useful as it seems that the UK doesn't publish anything on this, though I think we discussed before that there's a lot of importance in how things are defined

Example:
From 2016 but does criticise the stats HO was publishing at the time as being sort of misleading as it included people who missed their screening interview - which now appears to be near impossible unless you arrived during COVID as screening interviews are conducted before you're released on bail - but may have turned up afterwards
Have 12,000 asylum seekers vanished in the UK? - Full Fact

Statistics or not it’s clear the volume turning up is unsustainable there’s nowhere to put them, be interesting to see if they help the Afghans after that terrible earthquake, they were already suffering from famine .

 

[monga]

 

[Merpedy]

The phrase "lost or destroyed" is interesting as it seems to play into the idea that these people are doing it with bad intentions when that may not well be the case
Is there a limit of losing documents? What if they never had them to begin with? Did those people even have documents to begin with?

Also, ROI is part of the EU and can use the EU database for criminal checks. I'm sure they have a way around name checking and fingerprint checking (which I assume still continues in the EU?) too, so if these people are coming from the EU it's not necessarily the major concern it is suggested to be
If they are coming from other countries, possible visa issues aside, there's a chance that their criminal records aren't as thorough or trustworthy anyway

 

[monga]

The phrase "lost or destroyed" is interesting as it seems to play into the idea that these people are doing it with bad intentions when that may not well be the case
Is there a limit of losing documents? What if they never had them to begin with? Did those people even have documents to begin with?

Also, ROI is part of the EU and can use the EU database for criminal checks. I'm sure they have a way around name checking and fingerprint checking (which I assume still continues in the EU?) too, so if these people are coming from the EU it's not necessarily the major concern it is suggested to be
If they are coming from other countries, possible visa issues aside, there's a chance that their criminal records aren't as thorough or trustworthy anyway

How would they get on the plane with no documents?
Who said they’re coming from the EU?

 

[JoeBloggs]

The phrase "lost or destroyed" is interesting as it seems to play into the idea that these people are doing it with bad intentions when that may not well be the case
Is there a limit of losing documents? What if they never had them to begin with? Did those people even have documents to begin with?

Also, ROI is part of the EU and can use the EU database for criminal checks. I'm sure they have a way around name checking and fingerprint checking (which I assume still continues in the EU?) too, so if these people are coming from the EU it's not necessarily the major concern it is suggested to be
If they are coming from other countries, possible visa issues aside, there's a chance that their criminal records aren't as thorough or trustworthy anyway

Considering they were arriving by plane, they would not have been able to board without documents therefore they are either all extremely careless or purposefully losing/destroying them.

 

[Moth]

..... You’re literally just after posting about “ genuine asylum seeker “ and now you’re contradicting yourself ….it’s like knocking your head against brick wall trying to understand the points you think you’re making.
So let’s be clear you think we should welcome every illegal migrant even those that had claims refused elsewhere and put them up at the taxpayers expense? because that’s what’s happening.

The only time I've used the word 'genuine' in connection with asylum seekers is when I have been quoting you:

• in post #666 you wrote about "people in genuine need of help"
• in post #687 you used the phrase "genuine victims" and having to "distinguish between genuine and not so genuine". I quoted you in post #688
• in post #689 you talked about "those in genuine need". I quoted that in post #693 to which you responded in post #695 by asking for my definition of a 'genuine asylum seeker'.

I have consistently made my position clear that there is no such thing as a 'genuine asylum seeker'. If you ask for asylum you are an asylum seeker. It is then up to UKVI to decide whether that person should be given asylum or not. I have also consistently said that the decisions on asylum claims should be made "effectively, efficiently and humanely" and that those whose claims are refused should be removed from the country in a similar fashion.

You have consistently failed to make clear what you want to happen, muddied the water by interchanging terms e.g "asylum seeker" and "migrant", attached links without comment about what they add to the discussion and then steadfastly refused to answer any questions that try to clarify your position. However I am not frightened of answering questions so although I doubt that it will help I'll again I'll try to make my position crystal clear:

1. The UK should continue to abide by it's international commitment to refugees / asylum seekers and operate in accordance with UNHCR and ECHR policies and UK law.
2. The UK should offer a route by which people can claim asylum from outside the UK. I believe this will reduce the use of 'irregular routes' for those that want to claim asylum
3. People that continue to arrive by 'irregular routes' should be treated humanely
4. Asylum claims should be considered quickly and fairly.
5. While waiting for their claim to be considered claimants should be supported. Allowing them to work while waiting should be considered.
6. Successful asylum seekers should be supported in the transition to refugee status
7. Unsuccessful asylum seekers should leave the UK. The government must urgently seek agreements with other countries to enable this.

I hope that is clear enough for you. It would be good if you felt you could be similarly clear about what is your position. You appear to be obsessed with labelling as asylum seekers as 'genuine' or 'illegal' when neither term is applicable. Now if you want to discuss illegal immigration which is completely different from the topic of asylum seekers why not just make that clear?

 

[Merpedy]

Considering they were arriving by plane, they would not have been able to board without documents therefore they are either all extremely careless or purposefully losing/destroying them.

Were the documents they had legitimate to begin with?

 

[monga]

The only time I've used the word 'genuine' in connection with asylum seekers is when I have been quoting you:

• in post #666 you wrote about "people in genuine need of help"
• in post #687 you used the phrase "genuine victims" and having to "distinguish between genuine and not so genuine". I quoted you in post #688
• in post #689 you talked about "those in genuine need". I quoted that in post #693 to which you responded in post #695 by asking for my definition of a 'genuine asylum seeker'.

I have consistently made my position clear that there is no such thing as a 'genuine asylum seeker'. If you ask for asylum you are an asylum seeker. It is then up to UKVI to decide whether that person should be given asylum or not. I have also consistently said that the decisions on asylum claims should be made "effectively, efficiently and humanely" and that those whose claims are refused should be removed from the country in a similar fashion.

You have consistently failed to make clear what you want to happen, muddied the water by interchanging terms e.g "asylum seeker" and "migrant", attached links without comment about what they add to the discussion and then steadfastly refused to answer any questions that try to clarify your position. However I am not frightened of answering questions so although I doubt that it will help I'll again I'll try to make my position crystal clear:

1. The UK should continue to abide by it's international commitment to refugees / asylum seekers and operate in accordance with UNHCR and ECHR policies and UK law.
2. The UK should offer a route by which people can claim asylum from outside the UK. I believe this will reduce the use of 'irregular routes' for those that want to claim asylum
3. People that continue to arrive by 'irregular routes' should be treated humanely
4. Asylum claims should be considered quickly and fairly.
5. While waiting for their claim to be considered claimants should be supported. Allowing them to work while waiting should be considered.
6. Successful asylum seekers should be supported in the transition to refugee status
7. Unsuccessful asylum seekers should leave the UK. The government must urgently seek agreements with other countries to enable this.

I hope that is clear enough for you. It would be good if you felt you could be similarly clear about what is your position. You appear to be obsessed with labelling as asylum seekers as 'genuine' or 'illegal' when neither term is applicable. Now if you want to discuss illegal immigration which is completely different from the topic of asylum seekers why not just make that clear?

Again you’re just posting the same thing over and over, failing to acknowledge the concerns people have raised, instead you’re completely focused on the literal term for asylum seeker which nobody has disputed, I don’t know what point you’re trying to make …So for those reasons I won’t be replying to you as it’s clear you’re stuck in Groundhog Day.
---

Were the documents they had legitimate to begin with?

That’s for the country of departure to assess not the destination country.
---

In other words they’re criminals if they’re travelling on fake documents which is one of the concerns people are raising.

 

[Moth]

Again you’re just posting the same thing over and over, failing to acknowledge the concerns people have raised, instead you’re completely focused on the literal term for asylum seeker which nobody has disputed, I don’t know what point you’re trying to make …So for those reasons I won’t be replying to you as it’s clear you’re stuck in Groundhog Day.

Unsurprising that you don't want to respond anymore.

Anyway it appear that in general we have moved on from pages and pages of invective about 'genuine (or not) asylum seekers' to fretting about 'illegal migrants' and from the 'small boats' (the subject of this thread) to other routes into the UK.

Although it's apparently 'not disputed' I'm still not convinced that it's universally accepted that people who claim asylum when arriving in the UK are not illegal or economic migrants. They are asylum seekers whose claims should be considered on their merits.

So leaving asylum seekers aside, what are 'illegal' (or more properly irregular" migrants? There doesn't seem to be a broadly accepted definition that could be used to assess the size of the problem or what can be done about it. Certainly in terms of small boat crossings I understand that 91% of people arriving through that route claim asylum which leaves 9% that don't. On 2022 figures that amounts to 4,118 people. Not hugely significant

A wider definition of illegal (or irregular) migrants could include:

• people entering irregularly by other routes
• people entering irregularly by deception / forged documents
• people entering regularly but then breaching conditions (overstaying visas etc)
• people born in the UK to parents who entered irregularly

Irregular migrants are not permitted to work or to rent property, to access most social security benefits or some public services such as social housing and hospital based healthcare.

It is thought that the most substantial number of irregular migrants are those that enter the country by legitimate means and then breach the conditions of entry (e.g overstay visas etc). We don't seem to hear so much about those compared with the apparently much less significant number that come via small boats. Why is that?

 

[Gloria Rostron]

We need to be tougher. Anyone who comes here illegally should be deported to their country of origin. We also need to be using proper detention centres for illegal migrants and not hotels.