Tent city

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by Berlingogirl View Post
    I think illegal immigration can affect the housing stock. My Romanian tenants rented a 3 bed (the 3rd bedroom being downstairs and could be the dining room or office) and stuffed it full of people ie another two couples and a baby. When I confronted them about it they denied anyone else was living there but they'd had friends over to stay. So it would be easy for a legitimate resident to rent a property larger than they need and fill it with illegal residents who can then work for cash - gardeners, plasterers etc.
    Were the two couples and baby illegal immigrants?

    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

    Comment


      #32
      Until Brexit, anyone caught trying to arrive by dinghy could simply be returned from the country they came from (assuming it was in the EU).
      That's no longer possible, so, it's now much easier to be able to claim asylum.


      That may be true on paper but not in reality. They were not sent back to the EU as far as I am aware. Let's not make this an anti Brexit thread shall we? We have already agreed to differ on that! Again from Full Fact

      Although it’s certainly true that crossing the Channel without authorisation isn’t a legal way to enter the UK, Article 31 of the UN Refugee Convention states that refugees cannot be penalised for entering the country illegally to claim asylum if they are “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened” provided they “present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.

      A lot depends here on how to interpret which country people are “coming directly from”. It could be argued, for instance, that as the people crossing the channel are coming directly from France—which is not the country they initially fled—they don’t have the right to claim asylum in the UK.

      However, in 1999 a UK judge ruled that “some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum.” The judge specified that “any merely short term stopover en route” to another country should not forfeit the individual’s right to claim refugee status elsewhere.

      This means people who enter the UK by illegal means can legitimately make a claim for asylum, even after passing through other “safe” countries, provided they do so directly after arriving.









      Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
        [That may be true on paper but not in reality. They were not sent back to the EU as far as I am aware. Let's not make this an anti Brexit thread shall we? We have already agreed to differ on that! Again from Full Fact
        If people were intercepted before they arrived in the UK, if it was possible to determine where they came from, they were simply returned to there (unless it wasn't safe).
        That's no longer possible without free movement.

        Then google the Dublin System or Dublin Regulations, which has an EU agreement that allowed EU members to request information from each other when someone claimed asylum, to see if they were really someone else's responsibility.

        The UK didn't make much use of the system, but that might be because the majority of asylum seekers to the UK didn't come from somewhere else in Europe first (no one seems to have that kind of stat I can find).

        For example in 2019, the home office made 3,258 requests of other EU nations to see if someone could be "exported there) and were successful in 267 cases.
        It was, perhaps unsurprisingly because the Home Office seems completely inept, much less successful than other nations (although they had more asylum seekers). Germany made about 48,000 enquiries and was successful in about a sixth of them.

        Absent that agreement (which ended when we left the EU - it doesn't really matter whether we agreed on Brexit or not, that's just a fact) and now there is no such mechanism.

        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

        Comment


          #34
          Full fact once again - and a whole sixth of them in Germany - clearly a great system!

          : The EU has been setting up a Common European Asylum System for the last 20 years or so. From 2000 to 2005, the UK opted into a number of laws relating to this. These mainly involved how asylum seekers are treated and how their applications are processed, as well as laws setting out which EU country is responsible for processing an asylum seeker’s claim (the “Dublin system”). These measures are integrated into the UK’s asylum policies and procedures.

          But, since then a number of these laws have been altered and the UK has chosen not to sign up to these.

          The Dublin system has been seen by successive UK governments as greatly beneficial to the UK. The House of Commons Library says this is because the system tends to make countries which are closer to the EU’s external borders responsible for asylum claims.

          However, the ongoing ‘migration crisis’ in Europe has highlighted a number of problems within the Dublin system, and there is some doubt over its long-term future in its current form.

          The European Commission has identified a need for a permanent crisis relocation system to assist specific Member States in the event of extreme migration pressures. It is also considering additional changes to the rules for determining which Member State is responsible for an asylum claim. There has been some speculation that new proposals may impose more responsibilities on Member States without external EU borders than the current arrangements.

          New proposals are expected to be published by the European Commission for negotiation this spring. The UK government’s view on these proposals is that the principles underlying the existing Dublin regulation should be retained.
          Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
            Were the two couples and baby illegal immigrants?
            I don't know. I only knew they were living there after they left. Letters did come for them and I forwarded them to another local address. They could have easily been illegal immigrants or they could have been legal. Letters also came for a further two people, but I think they were just using the address. Or, they could have been living there too but it would have been in one of the other couples' room.

            Comment

            Latest Activity

            Collapse

            Working...
            X