English Channel migrant crossing crisis

[Moth]

Try telling that to some...

When they rock up on the coast, they are illegal migrants. When they decide to apply for Asylum, they are then an Asylum Seeker. When granted, a Refugee.

So all those trying to tell us those rocking up in small boats are not illegal migrants when they land in the English coast, are talking rubbish.

That is not correct at least it definitely wasn't until the Nationality and Borders Act came into force in June 2022. Prior to that someone that "rocked up on the coast" but who surrenders themselves to the authorities in order to seek asylum was not an illegal (im)migrant as they we're deemed to have "arrived" at the border not entered the UK.

The Nationality and Borders Act sought to change that by amendment of section 24 and 25 of the Immigration Act 1971. This created a new offence of illegal arrival at the border without valid entry clearance. In the first 5 months after thee new law was implemented only 96 (0.3%) of those arriving by small boat were arrested on suspicion of committing this offence, 78 charged and 56 convicted. The legality of this new provision is being challenged in court.
---

That’s what I basically said I think you’re deliberately intent on trolling me.

Well what you said is ...

We have to remember a migrant isn’t an asylum seeker until they’re claim is assessed, nor are they a refugee .

'Assessed' could mean a range of things including 'decided'. If by assessed you meant 'had their screening interview' then we agree but it wasn't clear that you meant that.

 

[monga]

That is not correct at least it definitely wasn't until the Nationality and Borders Act came into force in June 2022. Prior to that someone that "rocked up on the coast" but who surrenders themselves to the authorities in order to seek asylum was not an illegal (im)migrant as they we're deemed to have "arrived" at the border not entered the UK.

The Nationality and Borders Act sought to change that by amendment of section 24 and 25 of the Immigration Act 1971. This created a new offence of illegal arrival at the border without valid entry clearance. In the first 5 months after thee new law was implemented only 96 (0.3%) of those arriving by small boat were arrested on suspicion of committing this offence, 78 charged and 56 convicted. The legality of this new provision is being challenged in court.
---



Well what you said is ...



'Assessed' could mean a range of things including 'decided'. If by assessed you meant 'had their screening interview' then we agree but it wasn't clear that you meant that.

Good God I give up
The only thing that springs to mind is…A retired husband is a wife’s full time job

 

[Moth]

That’s what I basically said I think you’re deliberately intent on trolling me.

And now I see you subsequently said:

Yes you’re not classed as an asylum seeker in the UK until they’ve actually granted your claim

There is no confusion about your meaning there. It is simply, factually incorrect.

Good God I give up
The only thing that springs to mind is…A retired husband is a wife’s full time job

It rather depends what you want from this thread. If it it to post incorrect and ill informed opinions without anyone challenging nor asking you to justify them I can see why you might be irritated.

Personally I thought it is interesting that the government has recently changed the law to mirror what some people ranting about channel crossings already believed to be true and that that change has yet to be tested in court. Of course if someone just wants to drone on about 'illegal migrants' "taking the piss" and "jumping the system" without any idea of the facts then they may not find it so interesting.

 

[monga]

And now I see you subsequently said:



There is no confusion about your meaning there. It is simply, factually incorrect.



It rather depends what you want from this thread. If it it to post incorrect and ill informed opinions without anyone challenging nor asking you to justify them I can see why you might be irritated.

Personally I thought it is interesting that the government has recently changed the law to mirror what some people ranting about channel crossings already believed to be true and that that change has yet to be tested in court. Of course if someone just wants to drone on about 'illegal migrants' "taking the piss" and "jumping the system" without any idea of the facts then they may not find it so interesting.

What have I posted that was incorrect or ill informed? You replied with the exact same information that I posted …Excuse me while I just pop orf to read the Daily Mail I think Nigel Farage has an exclusive

 

[Moth]

What have I posted that was incorrect or ill informed? You replied with the exact same information that I posted …Excuse me while I just pop orf to read the Daily Mail I think Nigel Farage has an exclusive

You'll be disappointed to read that my posts are not always only about you but I thought my post #823 was as clear as it could be (but apparently not). You posted

Yes you’re not classed as an asylum seeker in the UK until they’ve actually granted your claim.

That is simply wrong. If this is what you genuinely believe it is no wonder that people who do know what they are talking about get confused by some of your comments about 'migrants'. I'm only qualified to give OISC Level 1 immigration advice but the definition of an asylum seeker is basic stuff.

I thought The Spectator or the Daily Express was more your cup of tea.

 

[monga]

You'll be disappointed to read that my posts are not always only about you but I thought my post #823 was as clear as it could be (but apparently not). You posted



That is simply wrong. If this is what you genuinely believe it is no wonder that people who do know what they are talking about get confused by some of your comments about 'migrants'. I'm only qualified to give OISC Level 1 immigration advice but the definition of an asylum seeker is basic stuff.

I thought The Spectator or the Daily Express was more your cup of tea.

You keep quoting me maybe that’s why I think they’re being directed at me
Now you’re back on migrants when you started a post about asylum seekers , it’s you that’s confusing yourself
I only read local news fyi

 

[Moth]

You keep quoting me maybe that’s why I think they’re being directed at me
Now you’re back on migrants when you started a post about asylum seekers , it’s you that’s confusing yourself
I only read local news fyi

Bemused not confused.

And you still can't concede that what you said about "you’re not classed as an asylum seeker in the UK until they’ve actually granted your claim" is wrong. It's clear now that you think that people waiting for their asylum claim to be granted (or not) are 'migrants' not 'asylum seekers'. That's completely wrong of course but it explains why you and I (and some others) are so often at cross-purposes.

 

[monga]

Bemused not confused.

And you still can't concede that what you said about "you’re not classed as an asylum seeker in the UK until they’ve actually granted your claim" is wrong. It's clear now that you think that people waiting for their asylum claim to be granted (or not) are 'migrants' not 'asylum seekers'. That's completely wrong of course but it explains why you and I (and some others) are so often at cross-purposes.

Economic migrants don’t always apply for asylum , some disappear never to be seen again, some disappear halfway through their claim for asylum are you saying that’s wrong?

 

[Merpedy]

Economic migrants don’t always apply for asylum , some disappear never to be seen again, some disappear halfway through their claim for asylum are you saying that’s wrong?

People that left their countries with no intention of applying for asylum somewhere are surely migrants by definition?

If I cross into France with the intention to apply for asylum there or in Germany, I would personally see myself as an asylum seeker; I get the impression that international law sees me as a refugee. If I’m just abusing the smuggling system then I’m doing just that and I’m a migrant. If I’m lying but enjoy being limited in my rights as an asylum seeker, then the asylum system is there to sort me as such and deal with me accordingly

The problem in the UK comes down to the processing system being stupidly long

 

[monga]

People that left their countries with no intention of applying for asylum somewhere are surely migrants by definition?

If I cross into France with the intention to apply for asylum there or in Germany, I would personally see myself as an asylum seeker; I get the impression that international law sees me as a refugee. If I’m just abusing the smuggling system then I’m doing just that and I’m a migrant. If I’m lying but enjoy being limited in my rights as an asylum seeker, then the asylum system is there to sort me as such and deal with me accordingly

The problem in the UK comes down to the processing system being stupidly long

Isn’t that why they’re assessed to see what category they fall into ?

---

---

 

[Merpedy]

Isn’t that why they’re assessed to see what category they fall into ?View attachment 1947158
---

View attachment 1947159
---

View attachment 1947160

You seem to be missing the overall purpose of an asylum seeker which has the potential for their claim to be accepted leaving their country - persecution or war. We have been over this multiple times so I won’t bother explaining in detail

When you seek asylum in the UK by applying to be officially recognised as an asylum seeker domestically, you become an asylum seeker in the UK. It’s like going from a refugee in the international law sense to being recognised as an asylum seeker domestically (i.e not internationally). At least that’s the way I see the international law definition interacting with domestic

Also as already mentioned multiple times, the vast majority who are arriving are seeking asylum. The government has recognised this. I don’t understand why this is even a talking point tbh

 

[monga]

You seem to be missing the overall purpose of an asylum seeker which has the potential for their claim to be accepted leaving their country - persecution or war. We have been over this multiple times so I won’t bother explaining in detail

When you seek asylum in the UK by applying to be officially recognised as an asylum seeker domestically, you become an asylum seeker in the UK. It’s like going from a refugee in the international law sense to being recognised as an asylum seeker domestically (i.e not internationally). At least that’s the way I see the international law definition interacting with domestic

Also as already mentioned multiple times, the vast majority who are arriving are seeking asylum. The government has recognised this. I don’t understand why this is even a talking point tbh

It has also been mentioned numerous times that not all people arriving are there for genuine reasons which doesn’t register or be acknowledged by some people.

 

[Merpedy]

It has also been mentioned numerous times that not all people arriving are there for genuine reasons which doesn’t register or be acknowledged by some people.

It’s why multiple people have said that the system should be quicker and more effective AND why we have the system of assessing a claim to begin with

 

[monga]

It’s why multiple people have said that the system should be quicker and more effective AND why we have the system of assessing a claim to begin with

But it’s not and that’s the problem .

 

[Moth]

Economic migrants don’t always apply for asylum , some disappear never to be seen again, some disappear halfway through their claim for asylum are you saying that’s wrong?

No that's not what I'm saying at all. Again I thought what I said was perfectly clear in response to your comment that "you’re not classed as an asylum seeker in the UK until they’ve actually granted your claim" (my underline).

If you claim asylum (and for the sake of clarity let's say the claim doesn't start until after the screening interview) you are an asylum seeker. Everyone that claims asylum remain an asylum seeker until their claim ends.

A claim could end because it is decided that the applicant qualifies for asylum at which point they become a refugee. Or when it's decided that they don't qualify for asylum. In both cases they stop being an asylum seeker at that point (unless of course they appeal the refusal decision).

Or a claim could end because the claim is 'withdrawn'. Some asylum seekers voluntarily withdraw their claim, some go back to their country of origin or somewhere else and some get permission to remain in the UK in other ways. People that "disappear half way through their claim" are also considered by UKVIS to have withdrawn their application. Then they also stop being an asylum seeker. From that point they are categorised as an illegal immigrant.

By definition, people that don't claim asylum are not asylum seekers. Unless they get permission to remain in the UK in some other way they are also illegal immigrants. That applies whether they are caught or surrender themselves to the authorities or if they 'disappear'. As far as I understand it, if they are caught by the authorities they are detained pending deportation. I don't believe they are placed in hotels etc. alongside asylum seekers but I'd have to check that.

You've accused me of 'trolling' on more than one occasion but I genuinely think that actually we've stumbled upon the explanation for the difficulty. If you believe that people waiting for their asylum cases to be considered are not asylum seekers and I think they are, it explains why I was confused by some of the things that you've said. As I've said before this term 'migrants' that has been used (whether by you or anybody else) is unhelpful because it means different things to different people. It just leads to misunderstandings.

 

[Merpedy]

As far as I understand it, if they are caught by the authorities they are detained pending deportation. I don't believe they are placed in hotels etc. alongside asylum seekers but I'd have to check that.

I’m pretty certain they get held in immigration removal centres:

Find an immigration removal centre

Immigration removal centres - addresses, contact details visiting hours

www.gov.uk

Unlike most European countries, the UK has not legislated a statutory upper time limit on individual periods of immigration detention. Of all people leaving detention in 2021, 87% had been detained for less than 29 days, 6% for 29 days to under 2 months, 6% for 2 months to under 6 months, 1% for 6 months to under 1 year, and 0.4% had been detained for 1 year or longer (Figure 6).

(Migration Observatory)

I'm pretty sure this is where those served with Rwanda notices and planned to be on the flight were also held, I think charities had shared some information on the specific centres as they had demonstrations there

 

[monga]

I’m pretty certain they get held in immigration removal centres:

Find an immigration removal centre

Immigration removal centres - addresses, contact details visiting hours

www.gov.uk

(Migration Observatory)

I'm pretty sure this is where those served with Rwanda notices and planned to be on the flight were also held, I think charities had shared some information on the specific centres as they had demonstrations there

The guy that killed the old woman wasn’t held in a detention centre was he! despite him being an illegal for SEVEN YEARS.

 

[Merpedy]

The guy that killed the old woman wasn’t held in a detention centre was he! despite him being an illegal for SEVEN YEARS.

An undocumented illegal by the sounds of it, and I'm sure he was arrested and held in prison while the court case was happening. If I remember right he was a failed asylum claimant, so really why did the HO not deport him?

As we've discussed before, and actually above regarding the up to £3000 financial aid offer, HO seems to lack action in dealing with those that have had their claims rejected

 

[monga]

No that's not what I'm saying at all. Again I thought what I said was perfectly clear in response to your comment that "you’re not classed as an asylum seeker in the UK until they’ve actually granted your claim" (my underline).

If you claim asylum (and for the sake of clarity let's say the claim doesn't start until after the screening interview) you are an asylum seeker. Everyone that claims asylum remain an asylum seeker until their claim ends.

A claim could end because it is decided that the applicant qualifies for asylum at which point they become a refugee. Or when it's decided that they don't qualify for asylum. In both cases they stop being an asylum seeker at that point (unless of course they appeal the refusal decision).

Or a claim could end because the claim is 'withdrawn'. Some asylum seekers voluntarily withdraw their claim, some go back to their country of origin or somewhere else and some get permission to remain in the UK in other ways. People that "disappear half way through their claim" are also considered by UKVIS to have withdrawn their application. Then they also stop being an asylum seeker. From that point they are categorised as an illegal immigrant.

By definition, people that don't claim asylum are not asylum seekers. Unless they get permission to remain in the UK in some other way they are also illegal immigrants. That applies whether they are caught or surrender themselves to the authorities or if they 'disappear'. As far as I understand it, if they are caught by the authorities they are detained pending deportation. I don't believe they are placed in hotels etc. alongside asylum seekers but I'd have to check that.

You've accused me of 'trolling' on more than one occasion but I genuinely think that actually we've stumbled upon the explanation for the difficulty. If you believe that people waiting for their asylum cases to be considered are not asylum seekers and I think they are, it explains why I was confused by some of the things that you've said. As I've said before this term 'migrants' that has been used (whether by you or anybody else) is unhelpful because it means different things to different people. It just leads to misunderstandings.

I think if you read back on the thread the majority of criticism is directed at those who abuse the asylum system ,not those refugees, asylum seekers or economic migrants that have made genuine claims , it’s the constant tarring with the same brush over everyone that lands here being persecuted and in fear of their lives is just ridiculous when we know it’s just not true .
---

An undocumented illegal by the sounds of it, and I'm sure he was arrested and held in prison while the court case was happening. If I remember right he was a failed asylum claimant, so really why did the HO not deport him?

As we've discussed before, and actually above regarding the up to £3000 financial aid offer, HO seems to lack action in dealing with those that have had their claims rejected

Yes ,whilst the safety of the public is at risk and the taxpayer fitting the bill, it’s beyond ridiculous.

 

[Moth]

I think if you read back on the thread the majority of criticism is directed at those who abuse the asylum system ,not those refugees, asylum seekers or economic migrants that have made genuine claims , it’s the constant tarring with the same brush over everyone that lands here being persecuted and in fear of their lives is just ridiculous when we know it’s just not true .

It would really be helpful if you could explain how someone abuses the asylum system.

You've introduced the concept of 'genuine' asylum seekers again. As I've said before there's no such thing as a 'genuine' or 'not genuine' asylum seeker. If someone applies for asylum they are an asylum seeker. It's then up to the authorities to decide if they qualify for asylum or not. Now you correctly believe that some of the people who apply for asylum do not meet the criteria for protection i.e they are not fleeing war or persecution. If that is the case they will not be granted asylum. However how do you propose to identify those people other than by considering their claim?

I don't know why 'genuine' economic migrants get a mention because presumably they are people who have successfully applied for a visa or who are allowed to enter the Uk without one. That has nothing to do with the asylum system so by definition they cannot be abusing it.

The mention of refugees is superfluous. In general terms a refugee that asks for protection is an asylum seeker and in UK Immigration Law a refugee is an asylum seeker that has been granted asylum

Everybody else that comes to the UK without permission (a visa or visa exemption) or who doesn't apply for asylum is an 'illegal immigrant'.