English Channel - A political/migration question

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Hmmm, perceiving perhaps a biased stereotypical opinion towards refugees.

Wondering where that is rooted in?.

So I'm interested, what is my stereotype based on my bias..

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by boatman61

So I'm interested, what is my stereotype based on my bias..

Maybe old school High Fidelity and not Stereo.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Maybe old school High Fidelity and not Stereo.

Way out..
Quadrophonic is the only way to go..
But Rap is crap..

[dannc]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Way out..
Quadrophonic is the only way to go..
But Rap is crap..

So are you a Mod or a Rocker?

Later,
Dan

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by dannc

So are you a Mod or a Rocker?

Later,
Dan

Neither.. not then not now, I'm not into cliques or gangs.
Primarily a lone wolf..

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Neither.. not then not now, I'm not into cliques or gangs.
Primarily a lone wolf..

Steppenwolf perhaps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njf7NBLBA_g&t=2s

[boatman61]

Its okay.. but give me sarcasm any day...

https://youtu.be/3N_rNz2oAGA

[SeanPatrick]

Originally Posted by Montanan

migrant

NOUN
a person who moves from one place to another, especially in order to find work or better living conditions. [...]

Originally Posted by SeanPatrick

To me ...

Most of what I wrote is my opinion. I do not need your definitions. I have several dictionaries. Actual books from way back when words had fixed, agreed upon meanings. Like "illegal" - meaning prohibited by law.


What is not my opinion is that these people are breaking laws. As I wrote, that is a fact. If you do not like that fact, then perhaps you should lobby to have the laws changed.

Originally Posted by muttnik

With respect, you'll notice I specifically said "British English" and you can't be expected to know the subtleties of language use by UK subcultures. My point was not about what the word applies to but that the word itself is (in the UK at least) politically charged and only used by those hostile to the people they're applying it to.

Seamanship should transcend politics. I'm not going ask a drowning person how they voted in the Brexit referendum before deciding on my course of action.

Fair enough. But the reason I even replied at all was out of concern for what I perceive to be a growing expectation that the world will suit each and everyone's preference. I've got news for you: it never will.


Is this a sailing forum? Of course the answer is "yes". But, by necessity, it is also a people forum. You can try to tell people not to bring politics or religion into it. You can also try to herd cats. Good luck with either of those endeavors.


Speaking of religion, I hate proselytizers as much as the next guy. But a key concept of Buddhism is that nothing exists in a vacuum. If it did, it would lose all meaning. After all, to understand what a "book" is, one must understand language and alphabets, paper and printing, information systems, and a whole host of other concepts. Everything is interrelated. Necessarily.

[poiu]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Err Europe is doing huge amounts to prevent illegal immigration attempts by sea. The U.K. uptill now have done little , largely relying on the French until Brexit happened.

Not so. The UK is doing exactly what the EU are doing. Paying the authorities on the departing coastlines to prevent people setting off in dinghys. The EU pays Turkey and Libya. The UK pays the French.

What we really need to do is something very different. I’d advocate pulling out of the UN treaties relating to refugees. They are being exploited and are not relevant to the current geopolitical environment.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by poiu

Not so. The UK is doing exactly what the EU are doing. Paying the authorities on the departing coastlines to prevent people setting off in dinghys. The EU pays Turkey and Libya. The UK pays the French.

What we really need to do is something very different. I’d advocate pulling out of the UN treaties relating to refugees. They are being exploited and are not relevant to the current geopolitical environment.

Curious as to which article or articles of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees do you perceive are not relevant today, and why?

May your concern be regarding migration of non-refugees, instead migration of refugees? For example, migrants motivated by say hazards of war, or adverse economics, or environmental / climate change, or famine, or natural catastrophes, etc.

As of 20 January 2020, there were 146 parties to the Convention, and 147 to the Protocol.

Here is a summary of the articles and obligations:

Article 1 defines who is a refugee.
Owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

Countries that have ratified the Refugee Convention are obliged to protect refugees that are on their territory in accordance with its terms. There are a number of provisions to which parties to the Refugee Convention must adhere.

Refugees shall

abide by the national laws of the contracting states (Article 2)
The contracting states shall exempt refugees from reciprocity (Article 7): That means that the granting of a right to a refugee should not be subject to the granting of similar treatment by the refugee's country of nationality, because refugees do not enjoy the protection of their home state.
be able to take provisional measures against a refugee if needed in the interest of essential national security (Article 9)
respect a refugee's personal status and the rights that come with it, particularly rights related to marriage (Article 12)
provide free access to courts for refugees (Article 16)
provide administrative assistance for refugees (Article 25)
provide identity papers for refugees (Article 27)
provide travel documents for refugees (Article 28)
allow refugees to transfer their assets (Article 30)
provide the possibility of assimilation and naturalization to refugees (Article 34)
cooperate with the UNHCR (Article 35) in the exercise of its functions and to help UNHCR supervise the implementation of the provisions in the Convention.
provide information on any national legislation they may adopt to ensure the application of the Convention (Article 36).
settle disputes they may have with other contracting states at the International Court of Justice if not otherwise possible (Article 38)

The contracting states shall not

discriminate against refugees (Article 3)
take exceptional measures against a refugee solely on account of his or her nationality (Article 8)
expect refugees to pay taxes and fiscal charges that are different to those of nationals (Article 29)
impose penalties on refugees who entered illegally in search of asylum if they present themselves without delay (Article 31), which is commonly interpreted to mean that their unlawful entry and presence ought not to be prosecuted at all[17]
expel refugees (Article 32)
forcibly return or "refoul" refugees to the country they have fled from (Article 33). It is widely accepted that the prohibition of forcible return is part of customary international law. This means that even states that are not party to the 1951 Refugee Convention must respect the principle of non-refoulement.[ Therefore, states are obligated under the Convention and under customary international law to respect the principle of non-refoulement. If this principle is threatened, UNHCR can respond by intervening with relevant authorities and, if it deems necessary, will inform the public.

Refugees shall be treated at least like nationals in relation to:

freedom to practice their religion (Article 4)
the respect and protection of artistic rights and industrial property (Article 14)
rationing (Article 20)
elementary education (Article 22)
public relief and assistance (Article 23)
labour legislation and social security (Article 24)

Refugees shall be treated at least like other non-nationals in relation to:

movable and immovable property (Article 13)
the right of association in unions or other associations (Article 15)
wage-earning employment (Article 17)
self-employment (Article 18)
practice of the liberal professions (Article 19)
housing (Article 21)
education higher than elementary (Article 22)
the right to free movement and free choice of residence within the country (Article 26)

[poiu]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Curious as to which article or articles of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees do you perceive are not relevant today, and why?

Because refugee status is too easily obtained dishonestly, when the real reasons are purely economic.

In the modern world it is now relatively easy to travel long distances to find a new home a long way from your country of origin to the most prosperous new home, so strife in distant lands, not previously envisaged in the original treaties to be a burden, now do become their problem.

I think a refugee should settle in his first country outside the home country, not the one he has sneaked over the border into. If he doesn't the should have his application for asylum refused. Any true refugee motivated by safety would be happy with this.

I think the definition of refugee should allow the destination country to determine the 'fear' risk to deal with dishonest applications properly.

As a further motivation to prevent false claims the right to reside should end when the home country becomes safe.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by poiu

Because refugee status is too easily obtained dishonestly, when the real reasons are purely economic.

In the modern world it is now relatively easy to travel long distances to find a new home a long way from your country of origin to the most prosperous new home, so strife in distant lands, not previously envisaged in the original treaties to be a burden, now do become their problem.

I think a refugee should settle in his first country outside the home country, not the one he has sneaked over the border into. If he doesn't the should have his application for asylum refused. Any true refugee motivated by safety would be happy with this.

I think the definition of refugee should allow the destination country to determine the 'fear' risk to deal with dishonest applications properly. That is the case. Asylum is evaluated and granted or not granted based on the specific facts of the individual.

As a further motivation to prevent false claims the right to reside should end when the home country becomes safe. Refugee status by definition does end if the return to the country of nationality or of prior residence does not invoke endangerment. There is that inherent "sunset" attribute to being a refugee.

"Owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it."

Indeed the convention does proscribe that asylum is to be pursued by the refugee within their first entry to a "safe" country, which country could be far away, or to which travel to a "safe" country could be travelled to by airplane or vessel bypassing many other possible "safe" countries. It does not require that the refugee travel to a neighboring land accessed country or even on the same continent, or to the nearest "safe" country. It avails travel to a safe country, of which all countries should aspire to be a place of safe refuge, and of which convention member countries have bound themselves to being just that, a safe refuge to non-nationals. Mind you this convention goes both ways, nationals of a country that changes in its internal situation can flee to another country for refuge. By way of example, in WWII the US government interned many Americans of Japanese ancestry but there was no convention that availed them the opportunity to migrate to say Mexico or Canada to seek refuge, instead they were rounded up and place in internment and most lost their homes, their land, their businesses. The USA was NOT a place of safe refuge. I had friends and neighbors that I grew up with whose parents were interned in such camps. I also had Polish friends and neighbors whose parents were interned by the Germans in WWII, they had tattooed numbers on their arms. They would have liked to have found refuge in the UK or the USA.

Note that refugees do not need to sneak across a border; they are to promptly and properly present themselves at the border and request asylum and claim refugee status. That is because they are by the law of the convention itself to obey the laws of the nation they are entering. And that is why many migrant will seek out border control personnel immediately upon entering. Yes many migrants are not refugees and some migrants do cross illegally and try to smuggle in and not present themselves to the authorities to initiate refugee status and authorized privilege. The entry of a refugee into any of the 147 members of the convention is not an illegal act, it is very much a legal act codified by the convention. The legality of such action is the reason for the convention and its largely worldwide adoption.

Do not confuse between refugees and non-refugee migrants.

Non-refugee migrants are an entirely different status and humanitarian issue.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by poiu

Because refugee status is too easily obtained dishonestly, when the real reasons are purely economic.

In the modern world it is now relatively easy to travel long distances to find a new home a long way from your country of origin to the most prosperous new home, so strife in distant lands, not previously envisaged in the original treaties to be a burden, now do become their problem.

I think a refugee should settle in his first country outside the home country, not the one he has sneaked over the border into. If he doesn't the should have his application for asylum refused. Any true refugee motivated by safety would be happy with this.

I think the definition of refugee should allow the destination country to determine the 'fear' risk to deal with dishonest applications properly.

As a further motivation to prevent false claims the right to reside should end when the home country becomes safe.

FYI:

Fact Sheet: U.S. Asylum Process
January 10, 2019

https://immigrationforum.org/article...sylum-process/

Note: The asylum process is one of many parts of the U.S. immigration system that have been significantly changed in the wake of the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As of March 20, 2020, all new asylum seekers have been denied access to the asylum process and are being immediately returned to either Mexico or their country of origin. With few exceptions, unaccompanied children (UACs) are also being returned to their countries of origin without a credible fear screening or access to due process. Under the new COVID-19 guidelines, UACs undergo standard processing procedure only in situations where return is not feasible, where there are signs of illness, or when human trafficking is suspected.

Who is an asylee?

A person, who sought and obtained protection from persecution from inside the United States or at the border. An asylee is an individual who meets the international definition of refugee – a person with well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group, who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. In the U.S., asylum seekers apply for protection from inside the country or at a port of entry.

In contrast, a refugee is a person who applies for protection from outside of the U.S.

Who is an unaccompanied alien child (UAC)?

A minor immigrant child who arrived in the U.S. or at a port of entry without a parent or guardian. UACs are children below the age of 18, who enter the U.S. without their parents or legal guardians. Those who arrive with a parent or legal guardian will be designated as UACs if the government pursues criminal charges against their parents or legal guardians. After apprehension by immigration authorities, UACs are placed in temporary care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which screens them to determine whether they have been victims of trafficking and ensures timely appointment of legal pro bono counsel for as many of the children as possible.

When a family member or other sponsor in the United States is available to take custody of a UAC and provide care, ORR places the minor with that family member or other sponsor. When a family member or other sponsor is not available, ORR places the UAC into a foster home. ORR is required to ensure that the actions and decisions related to care and custody of UACs are in the child’s best interest.

How can an individual apply for asylum in the U.S.?

Either affirmatively or defensively. Depending on whether the applicant is or isn’t in removal proceedings, he or she may apply for asylum either through the affirmative asylum process or the defensive asylum process. Under both processes, asylum seekers must indicate a “well-founded fear” of persecution in their home countries during a credible fear interview with immigration authorities. Otherwise, they are ordered for removal.

Affirmative asylum process – Individuals can apply for asylum affirmatively if they are physically present in the U.S., regardless of how they entered the country within one year after arrival. They can also apply for asylum at ports of entry. In an affirmative asylum process, an USCIS officer decides whether the individual will be granted asylum in the U.S. If USCIS denies an asylum application in the affirmative asylum process after the individual’s visa has expired, he or she is referred for removal but can utilize the defensive asylum process to renew his or her request for asylum.

Defensive asylum process – Individuals can seek asylum as a defense against removal after they are apprehended by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents in the U.S. or at one of the ports of entry without valid visa. A person in the defensive asylum process requests asylum in immigration court where an immigration judge decides whether or not the applicant will be granted asylum.
Individuals seeking asylum at ports of entry are placed in expedited removal proceedings by CBP and referred for a credible fear screening interview conducted by an asylum officer. The credible fear interview provides the applicant with the opportunity to explain how he or she has been persecuted or has a well-founded fear of persecution based on his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion if returned to his or her country. Based on the interview, the officer then decides whether the applicant has a “significant possibility” of being eligible for asylum. If so, the officer refers such individual to immigration court in a defensive asylum application process. If not, the applicant is ordered removed and may seek review by an immigration judge in effort to appeal the negative decision.

How long does the asylum process take?

The length of the asylum process varies, but it typically takes between 6 months and several years. The length of asylum process may vary depending on whether the asylum seeker filed affirmatively or defensively and on the particular facts of his or her asylum claim.

Under the affirmative asylum process, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) requires USCIS to schedule the initial interview within 45 days after the application is filed and make a decision within 180 days after the application date.

Under the defensive asylum process, applicants must go through the immigration court system, which faces significant backlogs. As of July 2018, there were over 733,000 pending immigration cases and the average wait time for an immigration hearing was 721 days. The backlog has been worsening over the past decade as the funding for immigration judges has failed to keep pace with an increasing case load.

Are asylum seekers released before their immigration court hearings?

It depends. The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) requires all individuals seeking asylum at ports of entry to be detained. They remain in detention even after officials confirm their claims as credible, unless the officials decide the applicants are unlikely to flee and do not pose a safety threat. In addition, they must pay a bail, which they often cannot afford. If released, many asylum seekers are monitored by GPS ankle bracelets. Data show that 96 percent of asylum applicants show up to all their immigration court hearings.

If officials determine the applicants’ claims are not credible, the asylum seekers are ordered for “expedited removal” and do not receive an immigration court hearing.

Under prior administrations, immigration authorities regularly released migrants from custody while their cases were pending in the immigration court system. Those migrants were still required to check in with immigration authorities and attend hearings in immigration court. The Trump administration has modified these policies to release as few asylum seekers as possible. A recent federal court decision requiring case-by-case determinations as to whether asylum seekers pose a flight risk or threat to public safety is likely to lead to more releases pending their hearings.

Does the government provide defensive asylum seekers with appointed immigration lawyers?

No. Asylum seekers may hire their own attorney if they can afford to do so, but are not provided an attorney by the government, as criminal defendants are. Some attorneys offer pro bono services to asylum seekers and UACs in immigration proceedings.

Chances of obtaining asylum are statistically five times higher if the applicant has an attorney. In FY 2017, 90 percent of applicants without an attorney were denied, while almost half of those with representation were successful in receiving asylum.

How many people are granted asylum?

Nearly 20,500 individuals in FY 2016. In fiscal year (FY) 2016, the most recent year for which data are available, 20,455 individuals were granted asylum, which is about 28 percent out of the 73,081 cases. Approval rates varied by immigration court from about 10 percent to 80 percent.

USCIS approved 11,729 affirmative asylum applications in FY 2016, representing slightly more than 10 percent out of the 115,399 affirmative asylum applications filed with the agency. This represented a 34 percent decline from the 17,787 affirmative asylum applications granted in FY 2015. The decrease occurred as the administration transferred a large number of USCIS asylum officers from the affirmative interview process to conduct credible and reasonable fear screening interviews. Even with increased overall staffing within the USCIS Asylum Division, the number of affirmative applications granted declined considerably and the number of applications climbed to a 12-year high of almost 200,000, as fewer asylum officers were assigned to review affirmative applications.

In FY 2016, 8,726 individuals were granted asylum defensively by an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals, an increase of 7 percent over the 8,246 defensive asylum grants in FY 2015.

In FY 2017, as instability in Central America’s Northern Triangle showed few signs of ending, immigration judges decided over 30,000 asylum cases, a considerable increase over the roughly 22,300 asylum cases decided in FY 2016, and the most FY 2005.

However, the denial rate grew along with number of asylum cases, climbing to 61.8 percent in FY 2017, up from 56.5 percent in FY 2016. Five years earlier, the denial rate stood at 44.5 percent.

[muttnik]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Legal/Illegal is now something you will have to factor into any future 'Booze Cruise's' to Dieppe or Cherbourg..
As any Aussie, American or Delivery Skipper will tell you, the legalities/illegalities of entering other Countries and the EU by boat IS a major part of sailing life.. if you actually go anywhere.
So a lot to do with sailing..

When France opens up post covid, not being able to sail directly to St. Vaast because it's not a port of entry and having to hike to the PAF in cherbourg on arrival and departure will have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with migrants and everything to do with Brexit.

[muttnik]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I would like to pipe up in defense of Dover.

Fair enough and apologies to the denizens of Dover. My last experience 2 years ago en route to dunkerque was coloured by some stress with an engine leaking diesel, trying to find somewhere to dispose of diesel and an impression that the town was a bit down at heal. I'm not a member of a yacht club so don't tend to visit them but as an international staging post I'm sure you do cross paths with interesting folk if you are the yacht club type. Happy to accept there's a better side to the town.

I'm actually a sucker for challenging port regulations so regarded that part as a positive for the interest value.

The point I was trying to make was that migrants might impact UK sailing more if they were aiming for Lee-on-Solent. You might enjoy Dover as a twice-a-year passage stop but would you base your boat there? DO many non-locals berth there? It didn't look to be crammed with yachts but I could have been mistaken.

What impact would *you* say migrants have had on your experience of sailing?