Asylum seekers who arrive on small boats will be removed from Britain and prohibited from returning or claiming citizenship under laws to be announced on Tuesday.
Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman, the home secretary, will bring forward legislation to make all such asylum claims inadmissible. The government will seek to introduce powers to detain tens of thousands of people and place the home secretary under a legal duty to remove them “as soon as reasonably practicable”.
Those who are fleeing oppression in France – and have come directly from France – cannot be refused the right to at least apply for asylum. But other than that yes, this will be legal under international law.
For don’t forget. The first safe country MUST offer at least the possibility of asylum. Everyone else can offer or not as they wish. Just as asylum seekers can apply where they wish – understanding that only first place must.
Will be removed
Prohibited from returning
Laws to be announced
Legislation to be brought forward
Seek to introduce powers
Legal duty to remove
As soon as reasonably practical
In other words about as likely to happen as Charlie Brown getting to kick the football .
Ah, those paper tigers… Ain’t they cute ‘n cuddly?
The loophole or rather the huge hole is that *asylum seekers” will be put up in hotels, given spending money food and a mobile phone until their claim can be processed. So no change then.
John – +100
Does anyone actually believe that any of these people will ever be removed from the UK? They come here precisely because they know they’ll never be sent back.
“For don’t forget. The first safe country MUST offer at least the possibility of asylum.”
If we actively persecuted specified groups here in the UK – Pakistani rape gangs, mouthy imams, academics who hate our culture and history, useless economic migrants, stabby West Indians – perhaps we could reverse the flow across the Channel. Enterprising blokes on the south coast could set up an industry of small inflatable boat procuring and people-smuggling. I know “Jobs are a cost” and all that, but it would only be temporary; they could soon revert to selling skunk and pressuring people to have drives resurfaced. But when the undesirables reach the dunes of Calais, the French would have to take them in.
Can’t we use asylu seekers as onshore windfarms ?
It’d be a big boon for the stepladder industry.
John – Yarp.
SadButMad Lad
The latest government wheeze to get my blood pressure going is grey-suited nobodies promising talk-show hosts that they will “get the appeals waiting list down”.
Translation:- over the next few months we intend to grant tens of thousands of approvals without the barest minimum of eligibility and background checks, probably via 10 minute zoom interviews with a gobby taxpayer funded human rights lawyer in attendance to tell the unidentifiable passportless doctor or engineer what to say.
Amazing that they’re risking their lives to get to a country which we keep getting told is the economic backside of the world, ruined by racism, Brexit, bad weather and worse food.
@jgh
What is ruining this country is that we give people like them so much in benefits
+100% Coward!!
There was an absolutely excerable interview over the weekend with one of the usual bedwetters, whose line was “Is Afghanistan a safe country???”
To which the answer _should have been_ “so what? are you suggesting that there is NOT ONE safe country in ANY land route between Afghanistan and here?”
It’s just lamentable that that response is not completely automatic.
If you were to believe the previous press releases then you’d think this problem had been solved 437 times already. But this time they really mean it!
What is the legal or practical implication of simply towing the dinghies back to France? Or taking the peeps on board and landing them there if their vessel is too dangerous(ly overcrowded)?
I wonder the same about North Africa. You can at least bribe some Libyan warlord to not shoot you while you are so doing. What happens to the returnees thereafter, well, they certainly considered Libya safe enough to enter.
Is it just that the powers that be really do want millions more muslim men? Or is there a genuine reason you can’t actually physically stop people entering the country?
Also a reason you have to pay for their keep when they arrive? I am sure if I turned up at LHR and said I wanted a house and food and pocket money I’d be laughed at.
“Is it just that the powers that be really do want millions more muslim men? ”
Of course they do – they are so much more likely to vote the way you want them to, and also to join gangs you can recruit (like the patron/client relationship in Rome) to beat up anyone you want to.
b4r
I too wonder why they aren’t put on a ferry as soon as they land in Dover. The gendarmes refuse entry at Ventimiglia and bus migrants back to Italy. And that’s in the Schengen zone.
“Is it just that the powers that be really do want millions more muslim men? ”
Yes. I suggest that the Hancock messages, particularly those involving his interactions with senior civil servants, make abundantly clear how much they despise the white working class English. It is hardly surprising that they are much more favourably inclined towards other demographics.
The loophole is that he comes as Ahmed first time, Mohammed the 2nd, Insha 3rd. And no one is going to have a fingerprint/facial recognition system.
We’re well past promises on this. Fuck off and sort it out, Rishi, and don’t open your fucking mouth until you can show evidence that you’ve fixed it.
How on earth would they think that a Muslim population will not first put Muslim Labour MPs into every Muslim constituency (done) then take over the Labour party or if that doesn’t work out create a Muslim party of their own? There won’t be any tory ministers then to ‘get the immigrant vote’. That’s how tribal politics work. Everywhere, every time.
Oh, and most of those immigrants came in the front door, not on a boat. And as long as we have group identity politics their kids will vote the group.
– Is it just that the powers that be really do want millions more muslim men?
In my younger years I did wonder if some secret little cabal of colonial converts and their descendants were quietly scheming to “submit” the country. But like most conspiracy theories, it was just trying make sense out of stupid. The reality is closer to what John describes, years of incompetent ghastly shits who hate us and laugh at our discomforts.
The “first safe country” thing is wrong. In two ways. No country MUST offer asylum to anyone. However many countries, having seen what happened in the first half of the 20th century and wanting to prevent anything like it ever happening again, mutually agreed minimum standards for dealing with refugees. It may be referred to as international law, but it’s nothing like laws which apply to individuals – there’s no police force to arrest a country, no judge to judge it, nor any prison in which to imprison it. It’s morals, not law.
But with regard to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and subsequent 1967 Protocol, it does not say that only the first safe country must provide asylum.
@jgh – “Amazing that they’re risking their lives to get to a country which we keep getting told is the economic backside of the world, ruined by racism, Brexit, bad weather and worse food.”
Well, I suggest that the immediately following comment may be relevant:
@Coward – ” What is ruining this country is that we give people like them so much in benefits”
For some reason there are people who falsely assert that refugees get wonderful treatment and lots of benefits here. Presumably those making such assertions really, really want more to arrive.
@Bloke in the Fourth Reich – “Also a reason you have to pay for their keep when they arrive?”
Yes, it’s because we stupidly make it illegal for them to support themselves by working.
@Bloke in the Fourth Reich – “What happens to the returnees thereafter, well, they certainly considered Libya safe enough to enter.”
Not neessarily. They may have considered it safer (e.g. 90% chance of being killed at home, 70% chance of being killed in Libya), or they may even have condiered it more dangerous, but a reasonable route to get somewhere safe.
Why don’t we just dump them in Calais?
– Yes, it’s because we stupidly make it illegal for them to support themselves by working.
We stupidly do anything with these illegal invaders other than imprison them with a view to quickly shipping them out.
The Australians have shown us the way – upon interception ship them off to a camp in foreign. They get to go anywhere except Australia. The boats stop coming. People smuggling /foreign invasion problem solved.
If we did this in conjunction with, primarily, Italy and Spain, we’d hardly ever see the smuggler boats on the Channel.
‘Oh, and most of those immigrants came in the front door, not on a boat.’
Same applies to Oz, Rhoda.
Yes, they must, first safe country.
Yes, it does:
The first safe country must offer asylum. Subsequent ones may.
Local elections in a few weeks…
@Tim – “they must”
What are the consequences of failing to do so?
“The first safe country must offer asylum. Subsequent ones may.”
If that’s what it says, I’m sure you can explain where it says that.