Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Why can we not enforce the standard EU rules?
OK Northern France is building camps so the invading hoardes can swamp Britain. The EU rules clearly state that an asylum seeker must seek asylum in the first safe country, now I know France is a bit of a dump but I think it's sort of safe so why do we accept anyone at all from France? Or any other EU outfit for that matter. I mean we obey all the other stupid rules about bananas and cucumbers etc and yet this one might actually be useful to us and we ignore it! Please someone, why??
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Unfortunately, Geezer, the biggest problem is that the French (and others) ignore the rules, not the UK.
As you rightly say, asylum applicants should make their claim at the first safe port of call. Many of those camping in Calais have been through numerous other safe countries before arriving in France. Each of those countries should have ensured that the status of those entering their country without permission was investigated. Their right to stay or otherwise should then have been determined.
Of course, many European countries have sieve-like borders, so establishing where the illegals came from previously is virtually impossible. This makes determining their future equally difficult. That is for them to sort out.
The UK is in a more fortunate position in that entry here is somewhat more difficult for geographical reasons. The port of origin of the majority that do make it here (especially from France) is normally known. Upon discovery they should be sent back to their port of embarkation forthwith. Alas (and this is where we are at fault) instead of simply doing so, the UK authorities entertain claims for asylum from these people.
That would not be so bad if those claims were dealt with within, say, 24 hours whilst those concerned were held at Dover. Those refused could then be returned to Calais. Unfortunately this is not done and claimants are asked to report to the Immigration Service's office in Croydon to begin their claim. It is a long way from Dover to Croydon, and many don�t make it.
Until a system of quickly determining eligibility is established and until we insist that any subsequent appeals are dealt with in the country of embarkation, and until we repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw from the ECHR (under which many of the �appeals� are lodged) it will continue.
As you rightly say, asylum applicants should make their claim at the first safe port of call. Many of those camping in Calais have been through numerous other safe countries before arriving in France. Each of those countries should have ensured that the status of those entering their country without permission was investigated. Their right to stay or otherwise should then have been determined.
Of course, many European countries have sieve-like borders, so establishing where the illegals came from previously is virtually impossible. This makes determining their future equally difficult. That is for them to sort out.
The UK is in a more fortunate position in that entry here is somewhat more difficult for geographical reasons. The port of origin of the majority that do make it here (especially from France) is normally known. Upon discovery they should be sent back to their port of embarkation forthwith. Alas (and this is where we are at fault) instead of simply doing so, the UK authorities entertain claims for asylum from these people.
That would not be so bad if those claims were dealt with within, say, 24 hours whilst those concerned were held at Dover. Those refused could then be returned to Calais. Unfortunately this is not done and claimants are asked to report to the Immigration Service's office in Croydon to begin their claim. It is a long way from Dover to Croydon, and many don�t make it.
Until a system of quickly determining eligibility is established and until we insist that any subsequent appeals are dealt with in the country of embarkation, and until we repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act and withdraw from the ECHR (under which many of the �appeals� are lodged) it will continue.
One of the problems with this idea is that would mean no asylum seekers would reach Britain (cue approbum) this is a bit unfair I feel and as an English man I feel fair play is important.
A Europe wide system (with detention) funded by the E.U, would distribute asylim seekers throughout Europe fairly, wth the same set rules for all, one appeal (in Europe), which would then determine which country you'd reside in.
The French have always looked out only for themselves.
A Europe wide system (with detention) funded by the E.U, would distribute asylim seekers throughout Europe fairly, wth the same set rules for all, one appeal (in Europe), which would then determine which country you'd reside in.
The French have always looked out only for themselves.
Of course the French have done so, Everton. And all power to their elbow. If only the UK were the same.
The idea you propose will not work. There would be nothing �fair� (as far as the UK is concerned) in any such scheme. How many �asylum seekers� do you imagine will be allocated to, say, Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania or the Czech Republic? How many will go to Turkey when they achieve their membership, bearing in mind that at the moment the UK has a number of Turkish �asylum seekers� living here? Furthermore, how many will stay in the country to which they are allocated, remembering, of course, that citizens of the EU have the right to freedom of movement throughout the community? Once admitted to the EU, they would have right of abode in any EU state. Any attempt to restrict this right would result in an immediate action for discrimination.
In any case, the people camping in Calais do not want to reside in any other European country. They have had ample opportunity to formalise their arrangements elsewhere but have chosen not to do so. They want to settle here because they believe they will be treated better here.
As a fellow Englishman I am very touched that they see this country above all others as the place they want to settle. Unfortunately my wallet is not so filled with national pride.
The idea you propose will not work. There would be nothing �fair� (as far as the UK is concerned) in any such scheme. How many �asylum seekers� do you imagine will be allocated to, say, Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania or the Czech Republic? How many will go to Turkey when they achieve their membership, bearing in mind that at the moment the UK has a number of Turkish �asylum seekers� living here? Furthermore, how many will stay in the country to which they are allocated, remembering, of course, that citizens of the EU have the right to freedom of movement throughout the community? Once admitted to the EU, they would have right of abode in any EU state. Any attempt to restrict this right would result in an immediate action for discrimination.
In any case, the people camping in Calais do not want to reside in any other European country. They have had ample opportunity to formalise their arrangements elsewhere but have chosen not to do so. They want to settle here because they believe they will be treated better here.
As a fellow Englishman I am very touched that they see this country above all others as the place they want to settle. Unfortunately my wallet is not so filled with national pride.
Thanks judge, but we do have a very quick system of determining elligibility, if they arived on transport from the EU they go straight back, TADA! can't get much quicker than that. All I ask is the UK obey the EU rules. Why do we only obey they ones that do us harm?
everton, no asylum seekers reach the UK? I'm struggling to find the down side on that one.
Perhaps one of our resident EUphiles will explain why the asylum rule is ignored.
everton, no asylum seekers reach the UK? I'm struggling to find the down side on that one.
Perhaps one of our resident EUphiles will explain why the asylum rule is ignored.
http://www.southampton.gov.uk/people/yourcommu nity/communityinformation/communitiesandequali ties/newcommunities/keymyths/housing.asp
Myth: Asylum Seekers and Refugees jump local council housing queues
Fact:
Asylum seekers are housed according to a completely different government system of support to British residents and are not entitled to council housing tenancy or housing benefit.
*
Previously, when asylum seekers were dispersed by the British Government to Southampton, city council housed them with private landlords. They were not given council housing. The money to accommodate them was given by Central government. It did not come from local taxes.
*
Those given refugee status do have the right to live and work in the UK. They can also apply for social or council housing. However their application is treated exactly the same as everyone else and is assessed under a range of criteria to do with their family and personal circumstances.
Don't let the truth get in the way, will you
Myth: Asylum Seekers and Refugees jump local council housing queues
Fact:
Asylum seekers are housed according to a completely different government system of support to British residents and are not entitled to council housing tenancy or housing benefit.
*
Previously, when asylum seekers were dispersed by the British Government to Southampton, city council housed them with private landlords. They were not given council housing. The money to accommodate them was given by Central government. It did not come from local taxes.
*
Those given refugee status do have the right to live and work in the UK. They can also apply for social or council housing. However their application is treated exactly the same as everyone else and is assessed under a range of criteria to do with their family and personal circumstances.
Don't let the truth get in the way, will you
Why do they come here and not somewhere else:
1. They have friends or relations already here.
2. They can disappear and take jobs with the migrant population without paying any taxes.
3. They can get free health treatment by bypassing the GP and going to either casualty or walk in centres.
4. Many of them speak English.
5. They can claim for political asylum and get free legal aid to do so.
6. Many are here for years before being granted leave to remain.
7. The government is a soft touch and care only about their own expenses.
8. They could not care less about this country and do it down by taking up school places, and vital accomodation.
9. And as mentioned above the Human rights Act which takes away our rights to get rid of them.
1. They have friends or relations already here.
2. They can disappear and take jobs with the migrant population without paying any taxes.
3. They can get free health treatment by bypassing the GP and going to either casualty or walk in centres.
4. Many of them speak English.
5. They can claim for political asylum and get free legal aid to do so.
6. Many are here for years before being granted leave to remain.
7. The government is a soft touch and care only about their own expenses.
8. They could not care less about this country and do it down by taking up school places, and vital accomodation.
9. And as mentioned above the Human rights Act which takes away our rights to get rid of them.
There is no reason why we cannot, Geezer, we just do not.
As part of some work that I do I once spent a day with the Dover Port Authority. I spoke to a number of immigration officials. Some of them were involved with searching lorries coming from France. They were instructed not to detain illegal immigrants who may be seeking asylum, but instead to direct them to Lunar House, Croydon. (They had pre-printed cards with, in various languages, directions how to get there). Of course, they were instructed to continue their proceeding against the haulage firms who unwittingly brought in the human cargo (usual fine �2,000 per person).
I also attended a seminar where a speaker from the Kent Immigration authorities explained the lengths his organisation went to in identifying and apprehending illegal workers in the county. What did they do with them? Gave them the same card with directions to Croydon. They are not instructed to detain them in either case as, apparently, they have done nothing to warrant such detention. Many of those apprehended have no genuine grounds for asylum, they are merely economic migrants.
The notion that ID cards will put an end to this is ludicrous. These people have no papers on arrival and many of them never gain any papers for the entire duration of their stay (which for many of them is the rest of their life).
Successive governments in the UK have seen fit to allow this situation to perpetuate. Despite what Vic would have us believe it is costing a fortune, but most of the costs are hidden. It is true that numbers have fallen, but we are still nowhere near robust enough in dealing with this issue.
As part of some work that I do I once spent a day with the Dover Port Authority. I spoke to a number of immigration officials. Some of them were involved with searching lorries coming from France. They were instructed not to detain illegal immigrants who may be seeking asylum, but instead to direct them to Lunar House, Croydon. (They had pre-printed cards with, in various languages, directions how to get there). Of course, they were instructed to continue their proceeding against the haulage firms who unwittingly brought in the human cargo (usual fine �2,000 per person).
I also attended a seminar where a speaker from the Kent Immigration authorities explained the lengths his organisation went to in identifying and apprehending illegal workers in the county. What did they do with them? Gave them the same card with directions to Croydon. They are not instructed to detain them in either case as, apparently, they have done nothing to warrant such detention. Many of those apprehended have no genuine grounds for asylum, they are merely economic migrants.
The notion that ID cards will put an end to this is ludicrous. These people have no papers on arrival and many of them never gain any papers for the entire duration of their stay (which for many of them is the rest of their life).
Successive governments in the UK have seen fit to allow this situation to perpetuate. Despite what Vic would have us believe it is costing a fortune, but most of the costs are hidden. It is true that numbers have fallen, but we are still nowhere near robust enough in dealing with this issue.
It may be interesting to point out when an asylum seeker enters the UK and what he is instructed by the UK Border agency. As you can see it is filled with ifs and buts. A relevent section is when detained from a EU destination you MAY be sent back to the country you came from in the EU.
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/claim ingasylum/howtoclaim/
I think these rules should be more strictly enforced!
http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/claim ingasylum/howtoclaim/
I think these rules should be more strictly enforced!
1 to 15 of 15
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.