The quote was on people who have already been deported attempting to enter the country again.The process of seeking asylum allows that you may have entered a country by ‘irregular’ means, so no, you are not automatically committing a crime by entering without the necessary paperwork if you claim asylum and submit yourself to the legal process.
The quote was on people who have already been deported attempting to enter the country again.
If you have been deported you’ve either been rejected for asylum, have committed a crime here or have entered illegally in the first place, so anyone attempting to enter the country following this is a criminal.
Jesus wept.
Which the vast majority trying to enter via a boat supplied by criminal gangs have zero intention of doing. The plan is to evade all law enforcement and to then disappear into society.
Criminal behaviour.
The stats suggest that most of those who travel by boat (and are caught) are genuine seeing as only a handful are deported, the remainder are successful in lodging asylum. Maybe those try to get caught? I have no idea.
And then in his dystopian dream when he can’t get to work due to congested roads or trains, or educate his kids or get a doctors appointment and he loses his job due to someone from China doing it cheaper, he’ll blame the Tories.Bob is the number one advocate of an open border world.
Entitled to that opinion of course but there is no point trying to debate this with him.
And then in his dystopian dream when he can’t get to work due to congested roads or trains, or educate his kids or get a doctors appointment and he loses his job due to someone from China doing it cheaper, he’ll blame the Tories.
Oi, i thought i was the top 'open borders' advocate on here?Bob is the number one advocate of an open border world.
Entitled to that opinion of course but there is no point trying to debate this with him.
Prima facie it's a crime to enter the country illegally, but there may be defences so, unless you believe in verdict and sentence before evidence, they are not necessarily criminals (and Patel's choice of words mixed up those few deported after conviction of a criminal offence with others who have not been convicted).The quote was on people who have already been deported attempting to enter the country again.
If you have been deported you’ve either been rejected for asylum, have committed a crime here or have entered illegally in the first place, so anyone attempting to enter the country following this is a criminal.
Jesus wept.
No it didn’t, she was correct, people who have been deported and are trying to regain entry are criminals.Prima facie it's a crime to enter the country illegally, but there may be defences so, unless you believe in verdict and sentence before evidence, they are not necessarily criminals (and Patel's choice of words mixed up those few deported after conviction of a criminal offence with others who have not been convicted).
Her choice of words had purpose and effect.
Which the vast majority trying to enter via a boat supplied by criminal gangs have zero intention of doing. The plan is to evade all law enforcement and to then disappear into society.
Criminal behaviour.
A tiny amount come in that way,so tiny they barely register ,the mail has done a great job on peopleWhich the vast majority trying to enter via a boat supplied by criminal gangs have zero intention of doing. The plan is to evade all law enforcement and to then disappear into society.
Criminal behaviour.
A tiny amount come in that way,so tiny they barely register ,the mail has done a great job on people
We could probably do with a dedicated "immigration" thread. I'm not sure the "open borders" advocates would be many; I just do the history of how that used to work for centuries, and how immigrants' work ethic and innovation has helped the UK- all those jobs round here thanks to Beyer (as in Beyer Peacock), Renold, Ferranti, Marconi, Dreyfus (Clayton Aniline), Brunner and Mond (ICI).And then in his dystopian dream when he can’t get to work due to congested roads or trains, or educate his kids or get a doctors appointment and he loses his job due to someone from China doing it cheaper, he’ll blame the Tories.
We could probably do with a dedicated "immigration" thread. I'm not sure the "open borders" advocates would be many; I just do the history of how that used to work for centuries, and how immigrants' work ethic and innovation has helped the UK- all those jobs round here thanks to Beyer (as in Beyer Peacock), Renold, Ferranti, Marconi, Dreyfus (Clayton Aniline), Brunner and Mond (ICI).
I did recall Ken Livingstone saying London could not function without illegal immigrants, but when I searched for that, this is what I got: http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2008/04/09/mayor_migrants_amnesty_feature.shtm)
(Johnson supports amnesty for illegal immgrants.)
Did i claim you did personally? The numbers coming by boat are a tiny amount of immigrants coming here ,not worth the gov setting the navy on them and talking like it is a national outrage,still it diverts attentionNever read the Daily Mail in my 49 years on this Earth, not once and only ever see it when its retweeted or posted on here.
Do you have a point other than to claim i read the Mail and take my cue from it?
I know we agreed to not discuss politics but a quick point on this that I think is very important.Did i claim you did personally? The numbers coming by boat are a tiny amount of immigrants coming here ,not worth the gov setting the navy on them and talking like it is a national outrage,still it diverts attention
i rather we stop them at source,i never want to see another dead baby ,patel's stance is aggressive not concernedI know we agreed to not discuss politics but a quick point on this that I think is very important.
A 16 year old drowned in the last 24 hours trying to cross the Channel, I would rather the Navy was there as it may at least result in less people dying whilst attempting the dangerous crossing.
I blame the French, they’re getting right on my tits and Macron is a git.
Neither do I but what are we meant to do in the Sudan, where this teenager came from?i rather we stop them at source,i never want to see another dead baby ,patel's stance is aggressive not concerned
Is it down to us to stop them at source? It seems to me that whilst their final choice of destination is the UK, some of the countries they pass through seem quite happy to facilitate their passage and we end up with dealing with the human misery. I can't imagination how deserate these people are that they would put themselves at such personal risk.i rather we stop them at source,i never want to see another dead baby ,patel's stance is aggressive not concerned
We agree nobody wants the crossingsNeither do I but what are we meant to do in the Sudan, where this teenager came from?
Do we want to engage in another foreign war?
They shouldn’t be allowed to cross the EU to get to Britain, they need to be stopped and if they’re genuine asylum seekers, they need to be housed across the UN equally, if not, returned to source.
Patel is trying to deter, if she can stop them crossing the Channel, less will try in future.
The end goal here is less dead people, which is why I’m against encouraging the crossings.