Originally Posted by
Ninthace
Yes. Given the vast majority that make it are allowed to remain when they apply, despite Ms Patel, there is clearly a case to answer. The law is what it is, not what you would like it to be.
To be fair, it's less a question of being allowed to remain, than a question of endless appeals and legal obfuscation caused by the current wording of the legislation. Which is what Patel is trying to change. The ECHR (and its instantiation in UK law) was not designed or drafted to reflect current reality. There is a decent case for renegotiation / redrafting to remove the loopholes that allow endless - often frivolous - appeals. But until it is the problem will remain.
For the avoidance of doubt that's not a call for ban 'em all, keep them out, but the suggestion that there is a difference between asylum seekers at risk of persecution in their home nation and economic migrants who are looking for "a better life" (for want of a better phrase). It is a practical and social reality that the country is unwilling to continue to accept illegal immigration (that's what it constitutes) and is is also highly detrimental in the longer term to those nations from where these people originate.
No simple answers - and certainly not turning them back at sea with the Navy. You end up becoming a de facto taxi service - as evidenced by the EU mission in the Med.