Surely asylum is for people escaping persecution in their own country? So if they've travelled through X number of European countries to get to the UK that makes them economic migrants looking for the best deal, and not just safety? If it can be shown they've travelled through a safe country, for example landing on a UK beach from France or Belgium, then it should be an automatic failure. If they truly have needs to be in the UK after escaping persecution then they can apply properly from whatever first safe country they're reached. Or is this too simple?

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.

The EU does have a law which basically says that they only make one asylum claim in the first safe EU country they set foot in. They are fingerprinted, then the data is share amongst all other EU member states to stop asylum “shoppers” going from country to country to make claims. But UK didn’t want to be part of that system - hence another reason why UK is such a draw for failed asylum claimants.

The EU is also introducing new electronic border controls from next year which will make it much harder for non EU citizens to overstay visas - the main source of illegal migration. At least it will help reduce the numbers of migrants arriving that way. Any who do overstay their visa will have the choice of deportation and never being allowed back to EU again, or trying to make it to UK. So I suspect the channel problem is going to get worse next summer as there are many visa overstayers already in Europe, mostly from Africa. Again, UK did not want to be part of that system either.

Personally I can’t wait to see the “outrage” of the Brexit press when from next year UK visitors to the EU will have to pay for an ESTA visa and have their fingerprints taken, and queue for hours at border crossings unless they do it online in advance.

You mind find this interesting
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...efings/sn01403

"In 2020, there were around 6 asylum applications for every 10,000 people living in the UK. Across the EU27 there were 11 asylum applications for every 10,000 people. When compared with EU countries, the UK ranked 14th out of the individual countries in terms of the number of asylum applications per capita."

Edit to add:
Is it time this thread wandered over to Jet Blast?

[QUOTE
Personally I can’t wait to see the “outrage” of the Brexit press when from next year UK visitors to the EU will have to pay for an ESTA visa and have their fingerprints taken, and queue for hours at border crossings unless they do it online in advance.[/QUOTE]


we already do have to queue for sometime now as we have to use all others in the eu. It is a tad annoying that eu, ch, us and Korea etc can use e gates in Heathrow. Perhaps some reciprocity would not go a miss

This is absolutely correct. People who are genuinely forced to flee by persecution are generally better educated than average, and they are a long term loss to their source country.

Most economic migrants are fleeing because they are illiterate, innumerate, have no qualifications, and have no chance of a job in their own country. So they are also mostly completely useless to European societies. Any migrant from these countries (particularly African countries) who is sufficiently educated, honest, literate and numerate to make any sort of contribution in Europe should be automatically returned to their home country where they are in great shortage. I think unemployment in Nigeria is about 40% - but having worked there for many years it is also very difficult to recruit competent and honest locals to fill even mildly technical positions. There is simultaneously mass unemployment and labour shortages in a lot of Africa.

Didn't the German Army in 1940/44 prevent anyone from entering the country at the coast ??? why can't the french prevent people from using their beaches to invade other countries such as the UK. There are enough people in the military. who do not seem to do much.

By the same token, the RN could scoop them up as they enter our territorial waters. Then the RN could hand them over to the Army who could force march them in columns to an airfield where they could be loaded into RAF aircraft to be flown back to their countries of origin where they could be dropped off. How's that for Jointery? And totally under UK control!
Well you started the stupidity SPIT and at least I got it back to the military and aviation :ok:

Are there actually any serious, humane and workable solutions out there?

Spit I somehow think mining the beaches and low watermark would go down with Joe public, neither would the miles of barbed wire or concrete bunkers.

Based at EGNX in the middle of the country, that makes sense when you realise it might be needed either west or east.

https://www.rvl-group.com/specialist-operations/

So all illegal immigrants pre 01/01/2021 were all returned to France ( for onward travel) were they ?

Why would you need that if they are caught in a lorry arriving from France ? Rather obvious that they have travelled through numerous safe countries. That apart, many attempt/refuse to give fingerprints ( this is a legal right in France ) which is why so many of the determined migrants around Calais refuse to have any contact ( like hostel accommodation ) with French authorities.

While Ninthace makes valid points that the boats and gangs are symptoms of the problem, in the absence of any immediate way of addressing the structural problems which create these symptoms, clareprop's approach appeals.

Although there are lots of comments saying that no laws are being broken and so the authorities are unable to take action, I note (from the BBC website) that following the 27 deaths last week, the French interior minister said 'Five people have been arrested in connection with the fatal crossing. Mr Darmanin said regional prosecutors had launched an investigation into aggravated manslaughter.' So, something can be done by the authorities if one or more people die. Surely there are other rules about endangering or something similarly generic that can be enforced if only 'they' decided to?

Switzerland should have taken all 1930/40s refugees since it was probably the first country they could have reached. Who decides what country is safe for which person? Bombing, famine is obviously not enough, persecution is the only thing to escape from? Look into Vietnam etc.

So yes, more than too simple.

Instead of batting around personal opinions of what the current law says, have a look at
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...ings/cbp-9031/
You could say the boats are another Brexit Benefit

1. When a Government is obsessed with open borders.
2. Refugee and Asylum seekers human rights act needs to be re written , if the UN don't like the idea, resign from the convention.
3. Remove all foreign aid from countries that refuse to take back known and provable refugees.

I.D cards are a non starter.

Watch for the New Climate refugees that is being pushed by the UN... The World is in Big trouble.

That seems to be fairly silly set of statements. 1 makes no sense. 2. What Refugee and Asylum seekers act? You want the UK to give up its seat in the UN and ion the Security Council? Seriously?. 3 Refugees have the right to stay, It is non-refugees that are the issue. A government, having made people refugees, is hardly likely to take them back. What about refugees from countries not in receipt of aid?

Edit:

Forgot to add. How will.any of that stop a single boat?

Refugees only have rights , because of the rules in place , re write the rules , no one is saying leave the UN, just the convention of refugees , because right now , the UK is powerless to send any back anywhere under the UN rules .

Not that much pressure left then that the UK could use, since the aid budget has been cut already.