This headline from the Torygraph.
As I understand it this is France's problem not ours. That is these migrants have entered France illegally (or perhaps legally) and now want to transit on to the UK illegally.
If they manage to enter the UK common sense suggests that were they intercepted at point of entry they could be immediately sent back to France because that can be identified as to where they came from.
Also as I understand it if there immigrant makes an asylum claim, then we have to host them while the case is considered, but if found to not supportable then again the immigrant is returned to the previous destination - in the case France.
I cannot find the international law rules relating to this. Anyone know anything?
Forbidden Bible Verses — Genesis 42:18-28
8 hours ago
5 comments:
"Also as I understand it if there immigrant makes an asylum claim, then we have to host them while the case is considered, but if found to not supportable then again the immigrant is returned to the previous destination - in the case France." L.
1. Assuming that's correct we still have to observe international law and that involves a fairly lengthy process. It does mean we have to think about building facilities to house several thousand claimants at any one time, presumably somewhere near Dover.
2. 'If' France decides to scrap the agreement and border checks are to be made in the UK this immediately lifts the fear among would be asylum seekers that they may not be able to get to the UK without risking life and limb. Hence it would be prudent to assume rather large increases in the number that will be wanting to cross the channel.
In light of the above there are two possible measures the UK could take to avert the aforesaid.
They could seal up the tunnel or threaten to at least. Would this be legal?
If this proves too costly [either to the treasury or to business more generally] we could offer to pay the French a considerable sum of money in order to preserve the current arrangements...say about £350m a week?
It appears that the "first safe country" is a rule of thumb adopted by the EU http://www.fmreview.org/north-africa/puggioni.html
Well we could always insist that the ferry operators sail from another port. Say Zeebrugge or the Hoek van Holland into the Humber. This would allow a long enough time on board to process any immigrants.
Then the major of Calais could explain why their economy has just gone breasts up.
What did we use to do before the EU? Could we simply go back to that?
OK, so there's the Chunnel, but the checks could be made on the trains before they set off to the UK.
A rule that works and is satisfactory for say a dozen or even 120 may not be workable or sensible when it is tens or hundreds of thousands. The present rules were drawn up on a basic consideration of individuals, now we are getting armies, in more sense than one.
Post a Comment